X Prize Founder Launches Rocket Racing League

David Rosen writes "MSNBC reports a 'Rocket Racing League' is launching today. The man behind the $10 million X Prize for private spaceflight is joining forces with a venture capitalist who is also an Indy car backer to establish a NASCAR-like racing league for rocket-powered aircraft." The Rocket Racing League also has an official website which outlines some of the specifics behind the program.

Comments

Non-chemical rockets

[biryokumaru]

I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

How is this insightful? Nothing except for nuclear is going to surpass the energy densities of chemical rockets. Are you saying we should be working on nuclear engines? Yeah in the future fusion energy might be used to create the fuel for the rocket, but the rocket will be the same.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[AKAImBatman]

Nothing except for nuclear is going to surpass the energy densities of chemical rockets.

Laserbeam-powered, solid-fuel rocket. Just keep a ground laser trained on the exhaust cone of the craft, and you'll have a highly efficient craft with oodles of power.

There's also the question of how exotic are the engines allowed to get. Ramjets or other oxygen scoops might provide comperable power but better fuel economy. Not to mention the case of staging. Can the rocket be staged to drop mass in flight? What about the use of meta-stable fuels that require no oxydizer?

You get the idea.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[biryokumaru]

Chemical rockets are simply too heavy to be realistically used for inter-planetary travel. What we really need is a type of propulsion that's much, much lighter for space travel.

I've always felt throwing small things would be the best method. Maybe simple radioactive decay, or using a power source to spin something to immense speeds and "throw" it at regular intervals.

Anywho, what I mean is chemical rockets are unrealistic for interplanetary travel, which is what we should be concentrating on if we're really thinking long-term.

Maybe that'll be the next type of race introduced. They had race cars and now race rockets, maybe I'm just hoping for a real space race. I suppose the costs would be unrealistic at this time to launch a bunch of competing ships into space.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

And which of these technologies are going to be more economically feasable than filling tanks with hydrogen and oxygen? Don't hold your breath.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Total_Wimp]

I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.

Better to be "grounded" in a working technology that can be improved, refined and used than to attempt nothing while we wait around for something better to come along.

A bird in the hand...

TW

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[AKAImBatman]

The laserbeam engine may be a bit more costly to produce, but air-breathers have definite advantages for relatively low cost. The only reason why they haven't been developed is that most rockets spend so little time in the atmosphere where they can scoop oxydizer. These vehicles don't have that problem.

Staging isn't a big issue, because you can make the rear pod recoverable and refuelable. It may actually be preferrable since you could refuel your rocket just by attaching new rocket stages. Remember, we're flying inside the atmosphere, not to LEO. The compromises are different.

As for meta-stable fuels, I'd wait to see how these races procede. If they catch on, you can be sure that SOMEONE will be cooking up batches of this rather volatile stuff.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

I agree with you totally. Solar sails, ion engines, or a nuclear engine that would be assembled in space. You could package the hot materials so that even if the rockets failed getting into orbit they would not contaminate the earth.

None of these technologies will be any good for flying at 5,000 feet over New Mexico.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Doctor Memory]

I've always felt throwing small things would be the best method.

Which conjures up this vision of a space ship with a dozen baseball pitching machines pointed aft...

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[interiot]

Furthermore, racing doesn't really hold us back in any way

Very high-speed car racing has improved all sorts of uses of aerodynamics in racing over the past, what, 30 - 40 years? As soon as teams started winning, everybody jumped over to using ground effect and other kinds of downforce.

In racing, as soon as somebody starts beating everyone else by using new technology, and they manage to keep the contraption held together for an hour or two, everybody in that league switches over and starts doing the same thing. I can't imagine that's something that holds technology back.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[heavy snowfall]

I doubt they'll get approval for racing around in nuclear rockets above the Mojave desert though... :)

--
Use your bluetooth phone as a modem for Linux

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[biryokumaru]

I just meant that the Otto-cycle internal combustion engines we use in cars today aren't the end-all be-all of motive power. Given the amount of attention they've been given over the past hundred years or so, any other type of engine could easily be as efficient, or even more so.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[CptNerd]

I've always felt throwing small things would be the best method.

Which conjures up this vision of a space ship with a dozen baseball pitching machines pointed aft...

Or the Flintstones' rapid-fire slingshot gun...

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Ironsides]

Maybe that'll be the next type of race introduced. They had race cars and now race rockets, maybe I'm just hoping for a real space race. I suppose the costs would be unrealistic at this time to launch a bunch of competing ships into space.

A modern day version of the sailing cups? Say, first one around the moon and back is the winner? No limits on anything else, other than that the pilot(s) must get back alive? Oh yeah, and the entire spacecraft must one stage, I supose. Given that it last took us 6 days to do an orbit of the moon in a maned vehicle without stopping (Apollo 13 being the only case I know of) we should be able to do it quicker today.

Once we get an economical way to orbit set up, this will hopefully not take too long to set up. Heck, with a moon base we could require a stopover there. Should be an interesting way to test out some enterprising people that will try to refule and resupply there.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Politburo]

Let me get this straight. You think it was car racing that 'stuck' us with the ICE? You believe that an extremely small amount of vehicles led to the widespread adoption of the ICE?

That is to say, you don't think it was the facts that an ICE is mechanically simple, powered by a cheap and easily transportable fuel, reasonably efficient, easily constructed, etc?

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Anonymous Coward]

See above:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164128&cid=137 06742

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[RRRussian]

What the GP meant, without saying it, was that NASCAR racing is very much low tech and not involved in devloping new technologies that can be applied to consumer cars. Take WRC or any other top-level rally circuit. They are developing higher efficency turbochargers, higher revving and more efficent valvetrains, both things which can be applied to the consumer market. Hell, there's even a Toyota Prius rally car. Talk about not being bound strictly to internal combustion.

NASCAR has been basically using the same engine design for years, because the rules haven't changed significantly in that regard. Now, IRL and F1 OTOH have been through massive changes in engine design, from 3.0L V12's to 1.5L turbo V6's in the same season! (The Unfair Advantage!)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Rei]

Laserbeam-powered

Good luck getting that sort of laser power ;) Not to mention that the wallplug efficiency of lasers with good coherence over a long range is typically less than one percent.

the case of staging

Already done :) People try to keep staging to a minimum to reduce costs. While a tow stage, for example, isn't very complex, high-speed explosive separation from powerful boosters can be. It also makes setup and reuse more complicated.

meta-stable fuels

Everyone wants them; nobody has them ;) Being a monoprop isn't really the big deal - people would love to use H2/O3 rockets, for example. The reason that the known exotic fuels aren't being used is because they're problematic; they tend to either be poisonous and corrosive (containing, say, beryllium or fluorine), explosive (say, O3), impossible to synthesize thusfar (say, N12), or a combination of the above. The drive for such fuels is quite understandable, of course - some of the ISPs blow the mind (for example, spin polarized triplet helium, at 2800-3150 sec - but it's "half-life" of two hours, and incredibly low density after containment (as well as containment difficulties - magnetic containment and laser cooling for a rocket fuel??) are greatly problematic). Research still is warranted, at least on the chemicals whose main problem is no known synthesis route, and those which might possibly be stabilized; alane (stabilized aluminum hydride) research is well underway, as an example.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[interiot]

Ahhh. Yes, Indy/CART/WRC/F1 seem to innovate much more than NASCAR (just like Harley vs. sport bikes (in case I missed pissing off anyone there)).

I was thinking that AWD had been developed during WRC racing, but apparently it was for the American military. So, I guess, yay for military spending, or something.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[j-turkey]

I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that auto racing is to blame as to why we're 'stuck' with internal combustion engines. Care to elaborate?

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[biryokumaru]

I already did.

I'm just worried that focusing on only chemical-based rockets will drown out alternative rocket types (such as nuclear rockets). This will thereby not be (although it seems obvious it should be) a boon to rocket design and theory, but just a high-cost spectator sport. That would be a pity.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[j-turkey]

I just meant that the Otto-cycle internal combustion engines we use in cars today aren't the end-all be-all of motive power. Given the amount of attention they've been given over the past hundred years or so, any other type of engine could easily be as efficient, or even more so.

And the blame for this falls onto the auto racing community how? Are those who partake in racing expected to carry the torch for all transportation propulsion advances? (Because this is what you seem to be suggesting in your post). Maybe it's the vintage racers who are to blame for their clinging to the old sights, smells, sounds, and feel of vintage races.

While auto racing can claim credit for many innovations in autos, I'm not sure that this entitles them responsbility for lack of progress in any specific area.

Perhaps you should put your engineering cap on and make the world a better place. If you provide me with one of your widgets, support me financially, and perhaps host a competitive road racing series featuring your widget, I'll even run your widget for ya :)

All joking aside, isn't a free market(ish) economy that is keeping these propulsion technologies down? We tend to be slow to accept new automotive propulsion technologies. Things like the Wankel and Miller Cycle engine have seen the open market with limited success. The Diesel engine has been on the market for decades, and is torquier and more efficient than gasoline 4-strokers. However (at least in the American market), these have yet to catch on. Instead, those who want a more efficient motor go with the hybrid motors, which are arguably less efficient (and definitely less cost efficient). The problem seems more market based than anything else. Perhaps increasing fuel costs will drive us to more efficient propulsion technologies.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[j-turkey]

Yeah, I saw your reply shortly after running my mouth. I posted a reply to that. I see your point, however. I'm just being a typical knee-jerk 'wait...that example sort of applies to me!' slashdotter :)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[McSmithster]

Well actually I would like to introduce you to pulse detonation. Here is the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engi ne. There is actually a lot of research going on in this field and will most likely be the next big thing in aeronautical technology. If all goes well this technology will give us mach 5 or faster civilian travel and could, for military needs, send planes near speeds of mach 18.

Pulse Detonation (PD) basically uses explosives. Not like the fuel in regular rockets or jets. The fuel in regular rockets are burned, as in a large stream of fire, these fuels will be more like a mini bomb. So think more along the lines of a stick of TNT going off in the engine. The difference is that rockets use propellants that travel slower then the speed of sound. PD will use propellants that travel faster then the speed of sound creating a much more powerful thrust.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[AKAImBatman]

Good luck getting that sort of laser power ;)

Bah. All you need is General Atomics as a sponsor, and the ITER to donate a laser or twenty. Large pulses should be just as effective as continous fire. ;-)

People try to keep staging to a minimum to reduce costs.

I'm not certain that will hold true here. You're talking about rocket-powered planes that drag through the lower atmosphere at subsonic speeds. Such designs should allow for simpler couplings, and better recoverability. As I said in another post, it might even become preferred because of fast refueling. Just latch on a new booster stack and you'll be ready to go. Compared to refilling LHOx or kerosine tanks, it would be positively speedy.

Everyone wants [meta-stable fules]; nobody has them ;)

Eh? I thought that some of the meta-stable fuels had been worked out, but simply didn't offer enough of an Isp or thrust advantage to justify their use. In these "sky NASCARs", as it were, the maintenece of the rocket would be less troublesome. Again, you're not lifting hundreds of metric tonnes to LEO, you're just going for a high powered joy ride with pit stops along the way.

Or maybe I'm confusing meta-stable fuels with tri-propellants. :-)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Rei]

I think you're thinking of NIF, not ITER. ITER is inertial confinement in magnetic fields. NIF is only firing for 1e-9 seconds, and has to charge for seconds to minutes between firings.

Simpler couplings

It depends: Is what you're attaching to still thrusting? Are you moving at supersonic or transsonic speeds, so that you have to worry about strong shocks? Do you need to detach from multiple things at once? All of these throw major risk factors and difficulties into the works. It's never nearly as simple as "latching on a new booster stack" - refilling tanks is much easier, as you don't have to make sure any connections are going to hold at several Gs and the detach cleanly (and have the boosters move away from you), without distrupting your trajectory. Boosters also have to be engineered for a particular task (to get proper accel. profiles), but I'm sure you're aware of that.

I thought that some of the meta-stable fuels had been worked out

Metastable means that the chemicals are inherently unstable, but have a "reasonably" long lifetime. Many chemicals are technically metastable (for example, H2O2), but are stable enough that it's a negligable effect in most circumstances. Generally when people refer to metastable fuels in rocketry, they refer to chemicals like O3, triplet helium, N12, etc which have unresolved storage and manufacture difficultues.

Tripropellants are completely different ;)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[AKAImBatman]

I think you're thinking of NIF, not ITER.

Ah, good catch. Yes, I meant NIF. Nothing like a terawatt laser to "brighten" your day! (Feel free to groan.) ;-)

Is what you're attaching to still thrusting?

That's a choice in the rocket design. Quite probably: No. These craft are designed with high-speed glide capability, so it's far easier to drop the booster when it stops thrusting.

Are you moving at supersonic or transsonic speeds, so that you have to worry about strong shocks?

An emphatic NO. Currently the contest requires that the craft stay at sub-sonic velocities. This is probably due in part to FAA regulations about super-sonic velocities over land masses.

Do you need to detach from multiple things at once?

If the purpose is to Keep It Simple Stupid, you probably want a booster that's easily detatchable, but locks itself in place during the boost phase. This is easy to achieve with a proper interlock. As long as the force is transferring to the craft through the interlock, the booster will cling to the craft. After firing is complete, the booster module can easily be designed to unlock and fall away.

Tripropellants are completely different

Yes, I understand. But I still thought that some of the exotic metastable fuels had been worked out. i.e. Were in a usable state. Yet they create so many problems that they're very difficult to use in "regular" launch boosters. It's just simpler to stick with LHOx. Just keep topping it off till launch time, and you're ready to go. ;-)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[AKAImBatman]

Ozone was the fuel I was thinking of. LHO3 would seriously improve rocket performance. Unfortunately, the ozone's metastability makes it a serious PITA to deal with. Might be useful for these racers, though. :-)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Rei]

Subsonic makes it easier. Single-booster makes it easier (but either gives proportionally less thrust or requires a higher performace booster). Just letting it "fall off" isn't that simple, because even at subsonic speeds, the force of the wind can provide torque to drive it into your craft. It's not nearly as easy of a problem as you might think at first glance.

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[AKAImBatman]

Just letting it "fall off" isn't that simple, because even at subsonic speeds, the force of the wind can provide torque to drive it into your craft.

True. But it's orders of magnatude more simple than the staged Saturn V. Creating a clean separation can still be difficult, but not necessarily something that can't be solved with some creative engineering, a good interlock, and a forceful ejection system.

I'm obviously oversimplifying when I say the booster will, "fall off". My point is that the interlock doesn't have to do that much work. The booster will hold itself together through natural forward and torquing forces. Once that pressure is relieved, there's not as much need for explosive bolts on these craft. Unlocking and using a proper ejection system (small rockets perhaps?) can make the procedure easier and safer. Obviously the pilot needs to be aware of his flight profile before ejecting the stage (e.g. Banking or diving is probably not a good time to hit that button), but it is highly doable. :-)

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[PoetDragon]

The problem with rockets is, you can't really get a small leap in energy efficiency and speed from chemical reactions without something as efficient and controllable as matter/antimatter reactions. Anything that currently lends more efficiency also requires further speed, and that means it would probably not fit on the course. Imagine NASA's Mach 7 - 10 craft trying to maneuver in a course as small as one mile long, it would need a course roughly the size of the state of New Mexico. Keep in mind, this is to explore new technologies, and enhance known ones...so who knows?

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[PoetDragon]

The pulse detonation model was initially proposed by those good ol' boys back in the fifties (Project Orion, see below for link) as a cheap means to reach space. It was proposed that a shell of heavy metal be built and nukes would be released beneath it to get a ship to orbit. This was quashed by the first nuclear proliferation treaties. It is sad that it was quashed, however, as it would have provided the most efficient space travel in history. The problem with the current models of PD is that you can't use gyro's to stabilize a vertically moving PD vehicle in a gravity well as influential as that of Earth's. Also, it is a supersonic jet, above and beyond what the Xraces are looking for, same as NASA's Hyper-X (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4115156.stm). The link for Orion is: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OrionP roj.html

Re:Non-chemical rockets

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea seems sound and having the FAA at least sound like it's giving some sort of approval to the idea tells me that they've got some of the basic kinks worked out to the point that it's not total crack smoking.

Hey, what do you got against crack smokers?

Reminds me of Air Racing

[W.Mandamus]

Reminds me of the Air Races in the 20's and 30's that gave aviation its start. Undoubtably they hope for the same result.

Re:Reminds me of Air Racing

[TheWanderingHermit]

It kind of warped me back to that era, or at least ficiton from then until the 60's when the public started watching rocket launches, as well.

For a minute there, I really thought I was reading something from the old Tom Swift books I used to read.

I literally expected to read the name Swift Enterprises as connected with racing rockets.

Re:Reminds me of Air Racing

[w42w42]

That was my first thought as well. I believe in a great deal of those races the prizes were funded by newspaper owners/publishers.

Crashes

[DaHat]

One major upshot of all of this is all of those who think the only good thing about auto racing is fantastic crashes... will no doubt enjoy such a league.

Something to be said for a rocket powered crater generator.

Re:Crashes

[Xzzy]

But, the downside will be that every other word uttered by a participant in the sport will be "sponsor".

Re:Crashes

[msdschris]

This will be different from other sports how?

Re:Crashes

[deft]

Problem though..... unless it's a hell of a small track, who's going to catch it on film? Nothing fast enough to keep up, and unless they have a grip of cameras, how would they cover a big course?

They can barely keep cameras on downhill skiing at the olympics, and nascar is only capable because its an oval. watching the long beach grand pri is like a MTV video with all the cutaways.

Hrmm..

[axonal]

Pod Racing anyone?

Re:Hrmm..

[supertoad]

that's what i thought of when i saw the headline. i'm really surprised it took this long for somebody to say it.

Re:Hrmm..

[infinite9]

Me and my friends plan to dress up as sand people and camp on a nearby mountain top with sniper rifles. :-) They'll never catch us, because we plan to ride single-file to hide our numbers.

Re:Hrmm..

[Orion Blastar]

Only if Jabba The Hutt is involved. He know him as Michael Moore in the 21st century.

F-Zero anyone?

[SSilver2k2]

I immediatly thought of F-Zero when I heard of this. Stuff like this has always interested me. :)

Re:F-Zero anyone?

[NarrMaster]

Hell yes. Now all we need are the inverted aerial tracks and insane turns.

My money's on Pico.

Re:F-Zero anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

no way.. samurai goro always wins.

Crashes...

[Hogwash McFly]

They say people only watch Nascar for the crashes: imagine what the viewing figures will be when you add in that extra power and degree of movement. Even the delightfully alliterative name of 'Rocket Racing' couldn't get any more Looney-Tunes-spiralling-into-a-canyon-wall stylee. The advertisers must be rubbing their hands with anticipation at the viewing figures.

Re:Crashes...

[ghukov]

The advertisers must be rubbing their hands with anticipation at the viewing figures.

hell,according to the site they already have a console game planned for xbox 360/ps3 etc scheduled for 2007. Cant' imagine the amount of fuel they will need for these races... I expect ticket prices will be upwards of $150 per seat easily.

Re:Crashes...

[AKAImBatman]

Cant' imagine the amount of fuel they will need for these races...

One word: SPONSORS

I expect ticket prices will be upwards of $150 per seat easily.

I don't know what NASCAR tickets go for, but probably something similar. ($150 for a "good" seat certainly doesn't sound unreasonable.)

Re:Crashes...

[msdschris]

Went to Michigan International Speedway this year and seats on the outside across from the pits were $80/each. What I found incredibly cool was you could bring in whatever food/drink you could fit into a softside cooler. The added entertainment of some of the spectators was well worth the $80 alone.

Re:Crashes...

[sapped]

I don't know what NASCAR tickets go for, but probably something similar. ($150 for a "good" seat certainly doesn't sound unreasonable.)

I think seats will be relatively cheap. On the other hand renting a decent shield to protect yourself from falling debris...

In the words of Howard Hugues...

[sherlocktk]

From the movie the aviator when Howard Hughes is trying to make his movie "Hells Angles" He had a problem showing the speed of the aircraft when in the air. It was determined he needed coulds to show it. I don't think this will work because the planes will not look fast on TV because there will be nothing behind them to show there speed.

Re:In the words of Howard Hugues...

[everphilski]

The same way you make the Blue Angels look impressive ... a "chase" plane that doesn't chase but rather engages head-on from time to time, and at other times intersects the path at various angles. You will get a very real perception of velocity.

-everphilski-

Re:In the words of Howard Hugues...

[BluFinger]

Perhaps they'll use balloons at a higher altitude to shoot down and use features on the ground to provide the same effect. Why not race over stunning land features like the grand canyon, etc?

Re:In the words of Howard Hugues...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was determined he needed coulds to show it.

Wow! - but wouldn't couldn'ts be even better?

Re:In the words of Howard Hugues...

[raider_red]

So just film it from hight altitude. Then we can see speed relative to the ground.

Re:In the words of Howard Hugues...

[MidnightBrewer]

Because people get offended when you race over national parks. Plus, nobody wants a bunch of craters and soot covering their stunning land features.

As for shooting the view of the race from a high altitude, the relative motion would still be very slow. You still wouldn't get any sense of motion unless the rockets were flying very, very low and the balloon itself was relatively close.

This could be better than NASCAR

[Achromus]

If they are able to film this, it would be better than NASCAR. NASCAR can get really repititious. But install several POV cameras on these rockets, and audiences could see racing where the scenery actually changes.

Re:This could be better than NASCAR

[Anonymous Coward]

And NASCAR is good? Riiiight...

Re:This could be better than NASCAR

[freeweed]

I bet they'll even let these rockets turn left AND right!

That's it we are officially into the 21th Century.

[timeToy]

A resources wasting, spectator unfriendly, impossibly loud and let's face it unpopular new sport is ill-born.
Expect the first and only season to be broadcasted at night on ESPN2 between Ginsu knife and Bowfex infomercial.

A Little Dangerous?

[piltdownman84]

Does this seem a little dangerous to anyone? Reminds me of an article about f1 in the thirties where 1/4 of all the drivers would die every year. I wonder if this sort of thing could even get insurance and clearance to race. Oh well I guess there is always Mexico ;)

Re:A Little Dangerous?

[kd5ujz]

Hell yeah it sounds dangerous. Thats the point. What fun would it be if you could just "hammer down" and run like a bat out of hell without worrying about skill keeping your ass alive.

"without the threat of death there's no reason to live"-M.M.

First Deaths?

[Rob Carr]

Deaths occur in racing sports like NASCAR, drag racing, cycling, and even running and triathlons. But what will public perception be the first time it happens in the RRL?

Re:First Deaths?

[Vellmont]

But what will public perception be the first time it happens in the RRL?

The same as any other dangerous sport. "Boy, I'm sure glad I'm just watching this on TV." If anything a jet crash is probbably harder to connect to on an emotional level because it would never happen in view of a camera or live audience like in say auto racing. I suppose the emotional part might come in with the unknown of potential crashes, i.e. "Joe Schmoe's transponder has stopped transmitting, could he have crashed? Stay tuned as rescue planes rush to his last known location!" Death has to be rare otherwise there's too many newspaper headlines and people start to feel bad about how dangerous the sport is. If deaths are rare (every few years) it will be easily accepted.

Re:First Deaths?

[CottonEyedJoe]

10+ cyclists per year die in crashes while racing, many more die in training accidents. When was the last time you saw a newspaper headline on the topic? I'm sure the figures for Auto and motorcycle racing are comparable yet these deaths are hardly noticed at all by the media. There will probably be far fewer deaths in rocket racing due to the numbers involved. Any shmo with a bicycle, motorcycle or car can race those things. How many of us will be joining the amatuer rocket racing league?

Re:First Deaths?

[fair_n_hite_451]

Unfortunately, the reaction will no doubt be "Cool!" followed by high-five's, followed by a moment of introspection, followed by the pressing of the remote to change to a new channel in search of the next 15 second thrill.

Re:First Deaths?

[e2ka]

My god, the league doesn't even exist yet and someone is already using an acronym for it.

SO many thoughts go through my head

[bloodstar]

I almost have to laugh at the number of peanut gallery comments I could make on this subject, but I won't (yeah, I'm no fun).

The idea seems sound and having the FAA at least sound like it's giving some sort of approval to the idea tells me that they've got some of the basic kinks worked out to the point that it's not total crack smoking.

of course, the safety issues are going to be brutal to tackle. They can keep drivers safe from some spectacular crashes, but plane crashses have an amazing tendency to be lethal. Add in the whole idea that you would push your vehicle to the limit to get an edge, I suspect you'll see all sorts of liability issues. Let alone the first plane that crashes into the spectators....

Co-sponsored by...

[nonetheless]

an award named after a well known scientist.

Re:Co-sponsored by...

[donaldm]

The "Jet Assisted Takeoff" (what every young petrol head wants and usually only once) is really an urban legend but it is still very funny in a macabre way.

"Course?"

[mhollis]

I still don't understand what the course is supposed to look like: From the article:

Courses are expected to be approximately two miles long, one mile wide, and about 5,000 feet high, running perpendicularly to spectators. The rocket planes, called X-Racers, will take off from a runway both in a staggered fashion and side-by side and fly a course based on the design of a Grand Prix competition, with long straight-aways, vertical ascents, and deep banks.

5,000 feet is an altitude that may be covered in seconds by a rocket at speed. A two-mile length with a curved track, like Grand Prix race cars use would require a kind of manoverability not seen on any rocket-powered craft.

The competition would certainly bar solid rocket motors, which go full-out continuously and cannot be throttled or shut down. I cannot imagine any braking system that would allow such a craft to slow down adequately for a "turn." The dynamics of these racers would appear to all but defy anything we have ever produced.

And such a craft would not necessarily operate in outer space. The ability to manover like that is the kind of thing you would need a gravity well to check your speed.

Re:"Course?"

[jangobongo]

I wonder about this too. Even the "Venue concepts" in their photo gallery on their official website doesn't enlighten me too much.

They have four "artist conception" pictures of the planes taking off and three showing the planes zooming near what look like grandstands, but it gives no idea as to what the course would look like.

As someone else mentioned, it reminds me of the pod races of Star Wars.

Re:"Course?"

[Nefarious Wheel]

The competition would certainly bar solid rocket motors, which go full-out continuously and cannot be throttled or shut down. I cannot imagine any braking system that would allow such a craft to slow down adequately for a "turn.

Hmm... What if the engines were not monolithic, but comprised of a number of discrete cartridges, each of which were unthrottleable, but could be fired in sequence? I could imagine a scenario where they might even use the same cylinder; just gated in some fashion like a sort of complex autoloader weapon. Instead of cartridges with bullets, cartridges of solid propellant. Several of these bundled together could give you controllable solid fuel combustion in measurable discrete impulses. Call it a Gatling Rocket Engine.

Of course if it jams (likely in the first efforts) it simply stops burning. You lose, but you don't explode.

Sounds like good movie fodder

[mister_llah]

Can you say...

"WAY 2 FAST, WAY 2 FURIOUS" :)

We need new propulsion methods

[phorm]

What we really need is a new form of energy and/or propulsion, period. With the way fossil-fuels are going, we need something akin to an X-prize for a vehicle than can match today's cars, but with a method of power that is long-term available/renewable. I'm sure there are lots of eggheads out there that might be able to come up with something amazing and wonderful, for the right incentive. It's hard enough getting by nowadays, but if there were the incentive of a massive cash prize based on various criteria... perhaps we could come up with some a vehicle that would be either road/sky friendly, or both.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[ArmorFiend]

The problem is the attempt to match today's cars. Lets face it, from a good-for-the-earth standpoint there's nothing worse than a sports car. Okay, it goes 0-60 in so many seconds, but that's never needed if the driver is compotent and not running for their life.

Either GM or Ford, I forget which, is making minivans in China that get 60 miles per gallon. 60! They're not hybrids. Their 0-60 is pathetic, but who cares? 60 mpg in a VAN. This is "good enough" for most people, but there's social pressure to drive a Caddie.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[topical_surfactant]

If you could dig up a link for that van, it would be awesome.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[Enigma_Man]

Honda makes a diesel that'll do 130 MPH, and get 92 MPG (not at the same time, mind you, but in the exact same vehicle though). It's not an overly-expensive interior-space-lacking hybrid, just a regular diesel, with an Accord body (looks like a normal car, not stupid-futuristic like a lot of "concepts" are). At the end of the quarter mile, the car is doing a dreadfully slow 54.198 MPH though. Acceleration isn't everything, but being able to get the hell out of the way of oncoming traffic and merge with a fast-moving freeway is necessary in many parts of the world. This would be on the dangerous end of slow acceleration for real-life driving.

-Jesse

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[AKAImBatman]

These things are not "Minivans". (At least, not as they're defined in the US.) They're "mini-vehicles", period. And yes, they're on sale in the US. No, I seriously doubt they'll catch on.

Not sure where you got the Ford or GM connection.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[ArmorFiend]

Ooops, 43 mpg city. But hey, $5000.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1 0F16F93C5A0C7A8CDDA10894DD404482
This article was free when I read it, but since has gone up in price. You already have the salient details. I remember them saying they lacked creature comforts of american cars, namely cooshie seats.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[idlake]

What we really need is a new form of energy and/or propulsion, period.

What about antimatter sails? Simple and technologically doable.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[Rei]

Not "overly expensive"? Lets see... a quick search shows an unequipped accord ctdi sport costing over $30,000. Hybrids aren't even that expensive; not all hybrids are small, either - the Ford Escape Hybrid, Mercury Mariner Hybrid, the Lexus RX400h, the Toyota Highlander, and - you guessed it - the Honda Accord Hybrid (only 3k more than the EV6 V6 Accord, and gets the same milage as a V4 Civic), just to list larger ones currently on the market. In fact, I'd say that they average about the size of the accord.

Not that the ctdi sport's numbers aren't outright great, mind you, even if they are for perfectly controlled conditions (which seldom materialize in real-world tests) :) The problem with diesels is the pressure. The high internal pressure generally means either a very heavy engine or an engine made with expensive materials/manufacturing techniques. When you scale up to large freight-hauling vehicles, the penalty becomes less severe. Trying to make a small diesel vehicle, however, means that you have a lot of mass that you have to get moving. Furthermore, diesels have high torque but low max RPM. The net effect on a small vehicle is slow acceleration. They can also be inconvenient (cold weather starting difficulties/delays, noise and vibration, etc). Again, to be fair, the aforementioned Accord has been rated quite well for a diesel on the typical diesel shortcomings.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[Blind_Io_42]

Deisels are the next logical step. Although they produce more pollutants by weight per gallon than gasoline, they are not the same hydrocarbons that come from petrol engines. Deisels burn at higher temps and pressures, meaning you strip more of the hydrogen atoms off the carbon strains, meaning you have a more effecient engine. The black smoke from a deisel is mostly carbon.

Someone should tell California, New York and Maine (Who have outlawed the sale of new deisel cars) that deisels actually get better milage than real-world hybrid ratings without loosing much in the way of performance (most drivers just need to get used to the different power curve of deisel engines). What we should be doing is finding a way to clean up the deisel fuel so it contains fewer contaminants, like sulfur, while working on synthetic bio-deisel for large scale applications. Then everyone gets to keep their high-powered SUVs and luxury cars while we develop a new renewable energy source using existing technology.

That Honda deisel may be slow, but with a minor change to the displacement and the addition of a turbo it would probably be enough for the typical driver. The other thing is that you have to change the gear ratios when moving from a petrol to deisel engine. Deisels don't have as high a horsepower rating as gasoline, for the most part, but they have alot of torque. If you gear everything higher you can make up for a lack of high-end horsepower by making use of the inherent torqiness of the motor. Slap on a turbo and you have slow initial accelleration until the RPMs get up enough for the turbo to build pressure, but then some deisels can out accellerate some petrol cars. I loved driving our '83 Mercedes 300D Turbo (inline 5 cyl turbo deisel), once I hit 25 mph the turbo kicked in and it was like god grabbing you by the seat of your pants and taking you for a ride.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[Jerry]

I drive a 4 door 2002 Saturn SL 5 speed stick that consistantly gets 30-32 mpg in the city and on my last long trip (2200mi round) it got 43 mpg.

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[ArmorFiend]

That's a different critter, obviously. I hope they do catch on. But at $25k, they're going to have to catch on without moi!

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[ArmorFiend]

I'm in the market for a "car" that can't even accellerate fast enough to get on the express-way. I just don't need express-way travel 99% of the time, and the other 1% I'll figure something else out. One would think that a "car" that only can go 30mph would cost significantly less, but so far I haven't found one. : (

Re:We need new propulsion methods

[Blind_Io_42]

Not to be picky, but te Civic is an inline four, not a V-four. Many of the problems you mention with deisels have since been eliminated. Deisels are very common in Europe and can be found in everything from 4 cyl economy cars, to luxury Jaguars, Mercedes, and BMWs as well as SUVs such as the VW Tou- Tuo- Teu- SUV-Thingy which has a whopping 5.7 Liter deisel. Although deisels do have lower max RPMs than gasoline, they have a broader powerband so you can gear the car higher higher.

Most new deisels are vey quiet, smooth running motors. I drove a VW petrol and deisel of the same model and I actually prefered the low-end torque of the deisel; it was also quiet and very smoothe. The '83 Mercedes 300D 5 cyl turbo deisel is another story, it was a loud car, but the engine was well balanced and there was little vibration, cetainly less than my 4 cyl 1976 Volvo 245 (petrol). Mercedes especially has come along way since the engines that sounded like power sewing machines, the new E-Class deisel is so quiet I could not even hear it running when it was right next to me.

As for cold weather starting, I used to live in Salt Lake City and that Mercedes 300D would just need one more shot of electricity to the glowplugs prior to starting. There were times it would start when other petrol cars wouldn't. Of course that was a Mercedes engine kept in a garage, but I would gladly put a block heater in my car if it ment 50+ MPG.

Rockets, Indy Cars, ...

[toby]

I think we know how this one ends...

Have you Voted yet?

Re:Rockets, Indy Cars, ...

[dr_dank]

I think we know how this one ends...

Actually, I'm pretty sure we missed this one. Care to fill us in?

X Prize Event on October 9th

[Aylanah]

The NM Economic Development Department is giving two complimentary tickets to the October 9th event to people with NM State employee IDs. You can either pick them up at the EDD offices in Santa Fe or Las Cruces or pill them up at the Las Cruces Airport. This should be a blast!

Interestingly,

[temojen]

All 3 aitcraft pictured on the front page were designed by Burt Rutan (and all of them strictly subsonic).

SPONSORS

[Spy der Mann]

And the X-Race will be sponsored by: (check all that apply)

[ ] Insurance companies
[ ] Medical Services
[ ] Annointments for scratches
[ ] Parachute companies
[ ] Funeral Services

Re:SPONSORS

[jatemack]

Nope, Google!

They already did a mock up of one of the racers with Google's logo plastered across the wingspan. (That's not to say Google actually signed up for that.)

Link

Re:SPONSORS

[Have Blue]

[ ] The Fox network

Indeed

[temojen]

I could seriously see a ramjet powered craft doing well in the tier 1 races due to not needing to carry oxidizer.

Re:Indeed

[everphilski]

Ramjets need to be supersonic. As the course is built for a subsonic racer it would probably not fare well (it would pull excessive G-forces in maneuvers)

Plus it would no longer fit the criteria, what not being a rocket.

-everphilski-

Re:Indeed

[temojen]

Ramjets need to be supersonic.

No, I believe you're referring to SCRAMjets. Ramjets just need a supersonic nozzle. See Wikipedia, especially:

...although inefficient at the slower speeds, are still more fuel-efficient than rockets within the atmosphere.

.

Plus it would no longer fit the criteria, what not being a rocket.

From the parent:

I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets

I was just pointing out we needn't be limited to rockets, let alone chemical rockets. Rockets are good at some things, like propulsion in a vacuum. Propulsion at subsonic speeds at low altitude is not one of them.

Re:Indeed

[everphilski]

Yeah. Less than 600 seconds performance. Traditional jet engines have 1700 seconds performance at that speed.

was just pointing out we needn't be limited to rockets, let alone chemical rockets. Rockets are good at some things, like propulsion in a vacuum. Propulsion at subsonic speeds at low altitude is not one of them.

so tell me why we would want to use a ramjet outside its designed environment?

-everphilski-

You can help... call them pussies

[Baldrson]

From: jim_bow...@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport.nascar
Subject: X-Prize Cup
Date: 30 Sep 2005 12:11:18 -0700


John Carmack, author of the 3D first person shooter video games, Doom and Quake, has put his money to good use by funding a small group to build a reusable rocket. Is going to be running 3 flights an hour at the up-coming X-Prize Cup:

http://www.xpcup.com/index.cfm

You might want to see his latest test at:

http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2005_09_24/200 5_09_27_hoverTest.mpg

So my question to the NASCAR guys is this:

Are you going to let this geek make you look like pussies or are you going to show him how power engineering gets done?

Looks like Long-EZs

[vijayiyer]

They basically look like Long-EZs (The Burt Rutan designed kit plane, http://www.ez.org/), with rocket engines.

Re:Looks like Long-EZs

[Once&FutureRocketman]

That's because that is what they are.

Re:That's it we are officially into the 21th Centu

[Rude Turnip]

I heard these races might get a prime-time spot on The Ocho. Jason Bateman was seen rubbing his hands in anticipation.

Gah. RTFA.

[everphilski]

RTFA.

5,000 feet is an altitude that may be covered in seconds by a rocket at speed. No, it will be covered at 5000/(Velocity in Feet Per Seconds) seconds.

With a max speed of 320 MPH (which you surely would not be doing in a maneuvering course) a two mile length of track would take 22.5 seconds per lap. Faster than NASCAR, yes. But that's the point.

The article specifically states kerosene engines. Kerosene is a liquid at all but the most extreme temperatures.

I cannot imagine any braking system that would allow such a craft to slow down adequately for a "turn."

It's called aerodynamics. Flaps. And you won't be gunning it most of the time. It depends on the course.

The dynamics of these racers would appear to all but defy anything we have ever produced.

Check out XCOR's website. The spec listed on the Rocket Racing website is very similar to the bird XCOR is currently flying, and will be flying at the XPRIZE cup.

And such a craft would not necessarily operate in outer space. No !@#$

-everphilski-

I wish anyone could race their own rocket...

[everphilski]

My one disappointment is that they are using a "standardized" XCOR airframe/engine. Diamandis says he thinks of it as "a rememberance of Star Wars pod racing" ... well they didn't use standardized airframes :) they built it and brought it. I wish they could take the same mentality.

-everphilski-

Re:I wish anyone could race their own rocket...

[Doctor Memory]

Yeah, I was really disappointed too. I had visions of the Grenville Bros et. al., in a return to the air rallies of the twenties and thirties. Lots of experimental, potentially dangerous designs. But no, it's more like NASCAR, everybody gets a standard airframe and gets to paint it whatever color they (or more likely their sponsors) want. I think this one's going to die on the vine.

Re:I wish anyone could race their own rocket...

[Have Blue]

I don't think he's too keen to duplicate the "run by organized crime" and "half the racers die each lap" parts of the pod race either.

Utopia!

[BJZQ8]

Maybe we can all afford it once we get to Kurzweil's Utopia!

Might be boring

[doctor_no]

The Sky is a pretty empty place, mostly blue during the day, sometimes with clouds. It's going to be very difficult to keep track of what is going on. Most sports, have markers, and visual cues that tell the audience of the position and events of each player. From looking at the concept pictures and reading the idea it seems that they will have a reletively complicated preset course that they will be flying in the air. I'm not sure how the spectator or the audience are suppose to follow the race, any tactics involving overtaking, technique, etc etc will be entirely lost.

Conceptually, it sounds incredibly exciting, but I'm scared that I will be watching a plane fly around against a blue backgroud for a couple of hours.

Re:Might be boring

[GreasyBloater]

From the press release:

"Fans at home will be treated to a three-dimensional course where the "tracks" pilots are following can be seen. Special effects for lap completions, barrier violations and penalties will also be a part of the show."

I think they'd show a virtual track(s). With GPS in each plane they can just put the virtual track in the right place in the video. Maybe it hasn't been done, so at first it might be pretty basic... but of course it will improve with time.

Looks cool to me.
GreasyBloater

Re:Might be boring

[Anonymous Coward]

If each planes position is tracked in three dimensions visual cues can be overlayed digitally in the hud, aswell as the cameras as long as their position and orientation is tracked aswell.

The only other alternative would be to build actual towers with giant rings attached to the top for the planes to fly through.

Rocket Jockeys...

[powerlinekid]

Anyone else reminded of the old game demo (they never financed the full game from what I've heard), Rocket Jockeys?

Nothing like riding a missle equipped with nothing but a crappling hook.

Re:Rocket Jockeys...

[Anonymous Coward]

The game I got seemed pretty complete to me. That was a fun game. Somebody should do a remake.

Re:Rocket Jockeys...

[Cruciform]

I remember the demo for Rocket Jockeys. Using a grappling hook to turn was cool. Using it to rip your opponent off his rocket was even better :)

Re:Rocket Jockeys...

[Prophet of Nixon]

Rocket Jockey was very finished. It was an absolutely incredible game, too, with an awesome surf-guitar soundtrack. There are only 2 difficulties here: 1) I can't find my CD (though I surely still have it), and 2) if I remember correctly, it depends upon some very old DirectX stuff that won't run anymore. That was just about my favorite game from '95-'96 (somewhere in then).

It will only be cool

[$RANDOMLUSER]

When they can do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.

Re:It will only be cool

[shish]

... how can someone do a run in an amount of distance?

Re:It will only be cool

[$RANDOMLUSER]

It's a famous mistake from the first Star Wars movie.
More here.

Re:It will only be cool

[nutshell42]

While it probably was a mistake in the beginning the official explanation (Kessel is/is near a number of black holes that make up the center of the Star Wars galaxy. The faster you are the closer you can make it past the black holes and the shorter the Kessel Run) makes sense. There are a lot of terms floating around that are not 100% correct or are a bit strange but that are used for historical reasons (American Football? Broadband? etc)

Re:NHRA on steroids

[poopdeville]

This isn't flamebait. The logistics necessary for interesting camera work are going to be impossible. Would you really watch a show featuring two shrinking dots? I personally wouldn't care enough to be interested in which one shrinks the fastest.

Hmmmm....

[8127972]

"The man behind the $10 million X Prize for private spaceflight is joining forces with a venture capitalist who is also an Indy car backer to establish a NASCAR-like racing league for rocket-powered aircraft."

With the crashes that tends to happen in NASCAR (just watch the highlights from yesterday's NASCAR race to see what I mean), perhaps this isn't a good idea. I think that if you're racing rockets, the last thing you want to do is "trade paint."

Did anybody else notice?

[i2878]

Did anybody else notice that their main web font looks very Star Trek-esque??

I prefer this being the start of Starfleet over another World War, nuclear holocaust, the Borg going back in time, and meeting Vulcans.

Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

This is pretty sweet. The jet powered Long-EZ has been around a while, and was flown at one of the X-Prize events by Dick Rutan. There's also a jet powered Cozy, which I won't like to because it's hosted on a very small server, that looks a lot slicker but doesn't perform as well as the XCOR EZ. I saw the EZ-rocket at Oshkosh in '02, and it went like a bat outta hell.

The day of high performance jet homebuilts is upon us!

OK, maybe not, but I can dream, right? Ever since I saw the Microjet for the firs time, I've been waiting for this. Now it's closer than ever.

-dave

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

There are a number of homebuilt jets already around. The BD-10 jet was intended to be supersonic (designed by the same guy who made the BD-5) but the first two produced both crashed about the time Bede went bankrupt.

The ATG Javelin is approaching production; it's supposed to be very, very fast. It was based on a homebuilt.

The Viperjet is also extremely fast, and likewise was based on a homebuilt.

Aerocomp has a homebuilt jet. I don't think they're selling kits for it yet, but they will be very soon.

Similarly, Maverick has some hot-looking material for the homebuilder.

There are several other pure homebuilts, including some plansbuilt (presumably not the engine...) on the market, as well, but since I'm at work I don't have a complete list.

Re:Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

While most of those have homebuilt roots, none share the roots or the accessability that the EZ platform has, nor have any had as many flight hours logged in public, as far as I know (even the EZ-rocket). The coolest thing about the EZ-Rocket and Cozy Jet are that they are within the (relative) grasp of the guy who built the airframe himself and still stinks of resin.

The Javelin/ATJ and the Viperjet both borrow heavily from the T38/F5 (and similar) design class of small jets that have been in use for decades, and the homebuilts have only flown recently (June and August IIRC, with a pittance of hours on the clock). I don't even want to guess at their cost, especially given the ATJ's obvious military market aspirations.
The Aerocomp, while it looks great, strikes me as a b-jet designed to get around the type certification process. Never mind that it costs easily 3/4 of a million (750,000) USD dollars to build to flyable shape in anything but stripped condition.

The Maverick looks like it's a long way from a generally available 49% kit, especially after one of the three prototypes killed Maverick's chief test pilot a few years back. The quoted price of around $1.5M USD for a ready-to-fly plane doesn't sit well with me either, despite the fact that Bob Hoover bought one.

Both of these are far outside what most people I know would consider accessable, and as much as I would love to see one of them at the local airstrip, I don't think they'll sell more than a few kits a year.

The appeal of the EZ-Rocket is the (currently apparent) accessability of the technology. By establishing a spec race design, the powerplants and airframes will be available, known, researched quantities. That in turn will enable things like affordable retrofits to existing EZ airframes (not soon, but eventually), and trickle down, tho not immediately, to the most realistic bracket of composite builders and flyers. Someone with good sourcing and an existing tool crib who is willing to invest the time can have a flying EZ up in the air for less than US$150k (I've done the math, all I'm waiting for is the space and the time), tho without the glass cockpit and leather that some seem to value so highly. A basic jet support package, installed during construction wouldn't add terribly to the cost of the airframe. Used but safe jets are available more readily than most think, and while I think it'll be a while before GE T-58s are found on the back of more than a handful of canard aircraft at Oshkosh, it's closer now than it was. Hell, EZ Jet does conversions today for under $100,000US.

What I'm trying to get at is that even if there is a departure from the admittedly very efficient yet short flying Rutan jet design (2ish minutes max burn at the EZ Vne of 195kts), it will open the door for more experimentation in the lower cost segments, mush like the Mazda, Subaru and Nissan powerplant experiemnts have. The BD-5J proves there is a market for small homebuilt jets that are affordable, and though Jim Bede actually built and flew the first of the BD-10s (to great fanvfare and anticiplation), the Canadian company he sold it to cratered before they ever delivered a kit.

Making the EZ platform jet-bearing will enable a lot of knowledge sharing in the industry and among the brightest and most fearless of the builders. I don't know about anyone else here, but I made a copy of the plans a few years ago when I first heard about the Cozy jet and the EZ-Rocket. I've been toying with the idea ever since. My front canard sits on the wall, waiting in grand anticipation for a jet ready platform to carry it, and I'm eagerly waiting for one to carry me.

-dave

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

You're entirely right. I'm not looking forward to the turbulence of someone else's rocket wake in a hard turn. WRT the BD-10, I had heard (apparently wrongly) that there were two copies built, each flew once, each crashed, one on approach to landing (unequal flap deployment -> spin -> smoking hole in ground syndrome) and the other in flight (tail tore off -> uncontrollable -> smoking hole in ground syndrome) so I'll have to research that more.

Re:Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

I'm not sure about the events leading up to the failure of the BD-10 project, only that Jim Bede sold the manufacturing rights to a company that cratered, either financially or literally. GIven that I can't find any record of a BD-10 flying in the last 5 years, the smoking hole theory may be true. Bummer.

I'm still jonesin' something fierce for a chance to start my Long EZ. First must come my recreational, then my private approvals. I'm not jumping in with both feet blind...I want checkrides and all that stuff ;-)

I'm not looking forward to paying for ground school classes after I spent 15 years flying right seat with my dad in a Warrior though. The joys of replicated training.

As for avoiding jetwash, it's common practice for controllers to space light planes far enough behind the b-jets around here to avoid it, as well as providing verbal warnings and alternate vectors for ascent to try and keep the 172s out of the vortecies of a G-IV, so I think fears about Cubs getting knocked around behind a jet EZ or something may be overstated, at least near me (ORD, AUZ, JMH, O6C, etc).

My $0.02, worth precisely what everyone paid for them.

-dave

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

1. Why pay for ground school? I'm no expert, but neither I nor those of my two other friends who have their PPL took formal ground school. We just studied, studied, studied, took online FAA tests, studied more. That saved a buttload of money.

2. I'm curious why you're going for recreational first. Just to get up in the air? I think that's cool: I just haven't met anyone that's gone this route.

3. The jetwash thing I was referring to was specifically racing with rocketplanes. Separation at airports should be quite sufficient to avoid this, even at the non-controlled airports I usually fly from.

4. Some day I *will* build an airplane. Good for you and I hope your first flights in the LongEZ go well.

Re:Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

1. I like the idea of combined education for these things. A good friend of mine is a CFI, and will be imparting his knowledge to me over the next few years. Flight time is bartered for pizza and beer (or car repair, as the case may be), but ground school classroom time, along with sim time, is real money, partly to pay for the instructional equipment there, and partly to cover the very real cost of keeping a small but excellent instructional group running in the midst of so many wannabes and hacks They're staffed by 2 ex USAF and 2 civillian CFIs, and offer everything from recreational training to complex, commercial and high performance certificates. 15 years in business, close to 1000 students, and a perfect safety record.

I'm not going to go into the relative merits of personal instruction vs the accredited home study courses. That's a whole vi-emacs thing I want to avoid ;-)

In case you can't tell, I do things carefully and with precision, and I take endeavours like general aviation pretty seriously. After I got my driver's license I did something similar, doing a number of high performace driving schools and a bunch of hours in car control and adverse situation training. I like to be as good as I possibly can at things like this ;-)

2. I've got plenty of time in an ultralight, and the recreational/sport license is literally a small step up for me. I want to get 200 hours in before I solo in my EZ. which shouldn't be hard given that I think it'll take 8-10 years to build. Besides that, a recreational (aka sport pilot) license will allow me to accrue solo seat time (albeit under 87kts, under 10000ft, not in class B, C, D, etc airspace, and only on sunny VFR days) while I"m getting my hours for my private, which will be here and there due to my schedule. The 20 required for the recreational will be easier to get due to the logistics of the license, or so I believe.

3. I thought you were referring to the general aviation applications of the jets. Mea culpa. If the racing league is structured anything like the others are, they'll be set away from heavily trafficed areas and well delineated, on the ground and with something like SPANS and beacon warnings. Burt Rutan and the guys around him are amazingly concerned with safety, and it's why he and Mike Mellville are still alive, among others.

4. And to you too. It's definitely a 'someday' thing for me too, but ever since I first laid eyes on a row of gleaming white canards at Oshkosh back in 1986 I've dreamed about it.

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

I got my training through a crappy podunk school, so I'm guessing my ground school was as good as anything they would've provided. It sounds like you're spending more time and effort on this than I did. In which case, have you looked at the Part 141 schools? They do things *right*: complete FAA-certified training course, intending to crank out professional pilots. It'd cost more, but it's pretty thorough. I know one person who went that route; she was snapped up by FedEx as soon as she got out of school. Tho' you've already found a good school, it sounds like, the 141 stuff might be worth looking at.

Getting a rec will encourage you to get lots and lots of time, and you'll probably get the private in the minimum hours (logged/paid) from that experience. That's a good way to do it, if you have access to something that flies.

I'm looking forward to Sport Pilot transforming (I hope) the field, but I'm not in their price league, which is why I'll be building. No canards for me: I'll probably end up with something like a Bearhawk with a Mazda hanging out front. I'll wave as you go zooming past.

Re:Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

The only flight schools I consider crappy are the ones that turn out pilots that fly lawn darts, but that's just my opinion. NOw podunk, that's a different story, especially to a boy originally from east TN like me.

I'd love to go part 141, but I can't spend the money or the time. My day job as an EE sucks up too manu hours to allow flying to be anything more than a hobby, no matter how manic I am about the training. My USAF buddy is as close as I can get, plus I get the bonus of tales of his time training budding jet jocks and bomber drivers. There are some incredible stories from that part of FI.

You're right, the sport/rec license route is all about me in the left (or front) seat. Hours and hours of practice are the only way I know to hone a craft into a discipline. Rec will lead to Sport will lead directly to Private, or that's my plan. Private can wait until I'm close to taxi-testing the EZ, but I haven a hunch I'll end up getting it long before then so I can do things like cross countries and IFR flight.

I think that Sport (and student sport) classes will indeed change a lot of things. What I've read in the last year is encouraging..it seems that there are more general aviation pilots signing up than in the last 15 years, which will drive the growth desperately needed both in the commerical manufacturing end of the plane world, but also the growth the EAA seems to be starving for. Hopefully my H10-30s will see use soon. I miss the smell of 100LL.

As for your Bearhawk, we'd be pretty evenly matched. I'd win on Vne (195kts vs 150ish IIRC) but cruise would be comparable (120-130), depending on altitude and whether or not I can find a good 3 bladed cruise prop ;-)

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

I've seen some pretty podunk flight schools. Consider finding another flight school when there's duct tape on the wheelpants or inside the cabin. Ditto that when more than two instruments are placarded 'out of service'. Or when the radio fails, and then a week later, in the same plane, it fails again. In fact, I've given this advice elsewhere, but: don't pre-pay for flight lessons. I've watched three or four flight schools go out of business, stranding their students, and while it sucked for the pay-as-you-go kids, it *really* sucked for the pre-pay kids, especially the ones who were from out-of-country and suddenly had neither money nor any local contacts.

It seems like a good idea to get the private first. Focus on one area at a time, right? Flying, then shaking the bugs out of a Cozy/LongEZ, rather than putting some of your early X-C time in with a somewhat unfamiliar plane, also known as the John Denver syndrome.

Your plane will be faster. I'm planning on big flaps, leading-edge slats, and big tires. I'd like to turbocharge -- turbonormalize, really -- it to help with altitude, since I'll be flying into my grandparents' place in Leadville, Colorado. The airport's at 9950 feet elevation, but they live adjacent to a large open flat treeless swath of BLM land somewhat above that. THAT should be fun...

I just bought a TIG welder. I also just bought a bunch of cheap steel tubing. This weekend, I'm going to start learning to weld tubing. This should be fun. First I'll tear some welds apart, then get some cr-mo and make a bike frame or two, and then maybe it's time to start on a fuselage. Yikes.

Re:Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

There's a reason I only went parachuting twice. The first time was at a podunk jump center, and I wrote it off as such. The second time, I realized why the pilot of a jump plane always wears a chute too. The altimiter and TBI were both placarded, and they still flew it. If I'd seen it before takeoff I'd never have gone up, but I was the 2nd one in, and stuck in the back. Oy. Never mind that I prefer to fly than jump by a large margin.

The issue of flight schools going under is part of the reason I'm paying real money for ground school, as I explained above. The insurance rates killed a few near me (all 3 had accidents on their records, one fatal), underscoring the need for vigilent instructors and uncompromising safety policies. Not to mention the problems with FBOs kicking the private pilots and clubs off the field and charging insane fees to everyone but the b-jet crowd to keep them away, but that's a different rant as well.

I'm interested in building hours for sure, but only advancing in capability once I"m truly comfortable, ie, rec/sport-student, then private and XC. Only then will I fly the EZ, whenever it gets finished. I'm flying ultralights now, since it's been a few years since I did it last with any regularity. I'll hopefully be starting ground school and seat time this winter, for a springtime solo. It should be fun. Also note that due to the fundamental nature of the EZs, I'll need complex (retractable nost strut makes it a rectracable gear aircraft) and high performance certs before I can get insured on it. But like I said, it's at least 8-10 years out.

No John Denver syndrome here. Part of my day job is human interface design. What killed JD was the impossibly poor location of the fuel tank switch and the highly nonlinear and unmarked sight glasses for the EZs fuel tanks. The NTSB investigation [pdf] showed that the only way to switch tanks was to reach over the pilot's left shoulder, requiring the right foot to be braced against something, like the right rudder pedal. The whole thing was terribly tragic and could have been avoided if someone had thought about the user a little bit. Thankfully N555JD was the only EZ on record with the wonky fuel selector position. Mine will have proper fuel sensors and calibrated sight glasses. I'm something of an instrumentation freak. Maintaining situational awareness is impossible without reliable information.

Slats, flaps and big tires will slow you down some, but probably not as much as you think. I can't afford an IO540, so it'll be more like a used and abused 0-235 for mine, all 120HP of it for my > half ton aircraft.

My welding experience started as a youngster, and I can still gas weld steel tube 15 years later and lay a neat stack of dimes every time. I've never done gas-shielded welding, but I think it'd be easier, given the much greater control it affords. I'm looking forward to picking up a little TIG rig some time. I have designs on some aluminium fixtures for my table saw and drill press.

-dave

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

Same experience with skydiving, only I wanted to see the plane before I even signed up to go. I didn't go. I later found out that they'd asked my flight instructor to take people up, but they *refused* to show him the plane's flight logs when the duct tape attracted his attention.
I am *not* jumping out of a plane unless it's actually ON FIRE. And hey did you read on avweb.com today about the Australian cropduster dude landing his plane while it was ON FIRE over its entire surface? So maybe not even then. If a wing falls off, then I'll jump out.

The John Denver thing was so stupid. I can sort of understand -- based on the foregoing bit -- why one would want to limit fuel in the cockpit. I wonder about having the fuel selector mounted on the firewall with a shaft going through the firewall into the cabin, that moves it from position to position. I'm really unenthusiastic about having fuel lines in where I am, or like the old Pipers clear pipes full of gasoline over your head so you can see the amount of fuel that's about to pour on your head if one of the lines breaks.

The guy who kits up the Bearhawks sometimes offers reasonably low-time O-360's for under $13,000. That'd sure beat a 235. I also wonder: you SHOULD get your complex and high-performance signoffs, obviously, but if you built up your LongEX with a 235 and a fixed-pitch prop, would it actually require either? Can you GET an adjustable prop with a 235? (Electric, I guess?)

The welding is great. I gas welded a little a decade ago, but I spend hours each week doing hot glasswork, and that, as it turns out, is very similar to gas welding and TIG welding. My *first* weld in 6061 aluminum, 0.040", was pretty much gorgeous. The first weld in steel? fabulous. I should've bought one of these YEARS ago. However, if you're talking about smallish fixtures, you could cast them. Doing home casting of aluminum is fairly easy and it's amazing what forms you can produce.

Re:Yeah!

[dpaton.net]

Indeed, I only plan to carry a chute as a last resort option, and only because it's cheaper than a BRS cannister. For now. It's amazing how low the fire risk is with a composite airplane. When the fuselage parts ways with the wings, there's very little metal to spark and ignite the fuel, and the design of the wing tanks on the EZ is such that they tend to seperate intact. It's pretty cool. In mine, I'm planning on doing the widely-accepted center sump mod, which does away with the sight glasses AND the transfer switch, and pipes both wing tanks into a central sump, unifying the fuel system and allowing a much simpler flow and capacitive gauge design. I'm more worried about rollover and stuck rudders than fuel in the cockpit. Avgas is pretty safe compared to auto gasoline. It's got a much lower vapor pressure and is harder to spontaneously ignite. I like that.

N555JD crashed because of mutual stupidity. Burt Rutan commented on how he couldn't believe Denver screwed up, not even a little, until he simulated the same action in an EZ, and it surprised and alarmed him how quickly things got out of shape. The builder did something dumb by requiring that the pilot go thru those contortions (including unstrapping) to change the selector position, and something dumber by not placarding it in any way. Denver was dumb because he didn't refuel before he left, and he wasn't familiar enough to know that the half-full mark on the sight gauges was far less than that in reality. It's a real tragedy, because it could have been prevented so easily by either party. I only harp on it because uninformed people tend to pile-on to the homebuilts-are-dangerous bandwagon. That drives me nuts.

The O-360 is a great motor, but it's a lot heavier than the 235, which messes with an already precarious CG in the EZ. I'm debating a massaged 235, or maybe a 320, with electronic ignition and maybe fuel injection, and downdraft cooling. Yes, it's money, but it does away with weight that can help to offset the engine mass. Couple that with a reasonably efficient three-bladed constant speed prop, and I could go places. Fast. The idea of Infinity retracts is also very tempting, especially for the increase in mileage, but it's all hanger flying until I find templates, since my EZ plans came without them, and they're critical for the rest of the construction process.

I'm glad the TIG thing is working out so well for you. I've heard it's not terribly difficult to start with, and I'm looking into a rig myself. Which one did you end up with out of curiosity?

Casting is an interest of mine, but I prefer the method of assembling machined parts with molten metal. Casting requires a furnace, fuel, and a whole benchload of casting accessories, cope tools, rams, and a ball mill if you want to get cheap casting sand, among other things. Not really my cup of tea.

Oh, I'm posting without a karma bonus because this isn't really thread related any more. The folks who kept it on topic deserve to have the extra +1 ;-)

Re:Yeah!

[smellsofbikes]

>this isn't really thread related any more

I tried replying by email but probably screwed it up: I'm good at that.
I got a Lincoln SquareWave 175. I'm really impressed with it.
Home foundry work is not very difficult, although it takes some space and understanding neighbors. Green sand (water/clay sand) can be mulled with a shovel with acceptable results, unlike oil-based sands, which do require a full muller.

buncha other stuff I was going to say but now I can't remember it all, and I've a bunch of work anyway: more later.

I can't speak for X-Cup but...

[Baldrson]

I suspect the thing X-Cup is optimizing for is participation from the competition racing shops like the NASCAR engineers. These guys are really good at optimizing a proven system design but they've been working within the racing rules for so long that they might have problems designing "outside the box" the way Carmack is.

Once some of the better racing engineers get a taste for the freedom and power of rocket engineering they'll start doing stuff outside the X-Cup -- sort of like a Baja 1000 for rockets. The X-Cup might decide to do something about it then.

Re: Racing

[Ruvim]

But would you have to beat Sebulba to win the Grand Prize?

YES!

[the eric conspiracy]

Brings new meaning to the term rice rocket.

I'M ENTERING THE BOONTA RACE!

Sounds like 50's Sci-Fi

I love it.

Racing in What Direction

[LordMyren]

I dunno, I really think we need an effective space plane, not just better and better rockets. Something like White Knight to 40,000 feet, accelerated launch to 120,000 feet, start skipping across the atmosphere doing periodic burns when atmosphere is available. Build up speed, get near double digit mach before turning on the boosters.

I guess we've just got to rely on NASA to work on scramjet and hope they get somewhere first.

Re:Racing in What Direction

[Tankko]

I really think we need an effective space plane, not just better and better rockets.

I just don't think this is true. Look who's send the most people into space? The Russians.

Rocket are just cheaper and the reuseability isn't buying you much. About the only use the shuttle really has is the ability to bring big things things back.

I can't wait for...

[GojiraDeMonstah]

... the rear windshield stickers of Calvin peeing on a Scaled Composites logo.

in-rocket cams, of course!

[192939495969798999]

If they get in-car/in-rocket cams on pay-per-view, I'm in!

Interesting concept, but will flop...

[Amigori]

I can't help but think of the airplane racing in The Rocketeer, but not near as exciting. Also of an old game called "Slipstream 5000."

NASCAR, Indy, and F1 are all technologically advance machines driven for extended amounts of time at high speeds along exciting circuits capabale of seating hundreds of thousands of fans during all kinds of weather and track conditions. All teams command a multitude of sponsors from various industries and include a manufacturer of core equipment, like Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, McLaren, Ferrari, etc. The core manufacturer uses technology derived from their respective racing teams and eventually use it in products they sell to customers.

Which is where the problem comes in...
Commercially, this is not viable because:

1. Airframe, Powerplant, and other suppliers are not going to sell this technolgoy at some point to consumers, at least within the next 50 years.
2. Where are people going to watch this from? Auto racing packs in the crowds because people can get close to the racing, even though they might not see much of the track.
3. Seriously, 3-4 laps of glide time and 4 min of available thrust between 5-10 minute pit stops?? BOOOOORING!!! Especially versus 30-50 laps between less than 15 second pit stops...and not to mention 300-500+ mile races!
4. Most people cannot relate to a "rocket racer" because they don't own a rocket plane. Its very easy to relate to a race car driver because you own a car.
5. $$$$....To own a basic pro-circuit auto racing team, its millions of dollars in costs. A rocket racing team would have extremely high upfront costs, high maintenance costs, and probably low payout. Poor ROI.

I'm not trying to bash the Rocket Racing League idea, as I think its a neat concept, especially concerning space technology development. I just strongly believe it not to be commercially viable and will not be very popular. Good Luck anyways.
Amigori

Re:Interesting concept, but will flop...

[NickCool]

These guys and a few gals, The Reno Air racers already do something very similar to this. Numerous classes of planes inclding jets run on courses varying from 6 to 8 miles in length. They fly on the deck, by rule minimum altitude during a race is 50 feet!
As exiting as these races are for some people, it is a relativley narrow demograhic. Also the requirements for air racing tend to limit the places where it can be conducted. So sponsorship opportunities are very limited and most of the competitors pay a significant amount of their expenses out of pocket.
All this adds up to one event, albeit a week long aerial orgy, per year.
Seems like a series of rocket races might be a stretch.

Re:Interesting concept, but will flop...

[GreasyBloater]

You nay too much! By chance... are you a horse?

Neigh... can't be

GreasyBloater

Re:NHRA on steroids

[GreasyBloater]

This isn't flamebait. The logistics necessary for interesting camera work are going to be impossible. Would you really watch a show featuring two shrinking dots? I personally wouldn't care enough to be interested in which one shrinks the fastest.

I think you're right. Because who ever heard of telephoto lenses, blimps, computers, and virtual effects at a sporting event?

GreasyBloater

The Reno Air Races Still go on you know...

[Banner]

Every year in Reno Nevada there are air races. I went last year, and it cost about 25 bucks per day for general admission. Box seats for the whole event with a pit pass is about 500 dollars.

This is a sport mainly for millionaires, not unlike this rocket racing would be, however you'd be surprised at just how many people compete, and how many people show up to watch! It's exciting, interesting, and a lot of fun.

And no, I'm not part of Section 3, but look for me in the box seats next year.

Re:The Reno Air Races Still go on you know...

[Molochi]

I think it's funny that the PROPELLOR powerered aircraft (modified P-51 fighters and such) that I watched at the Reno airraces 15 years ago, were considerably faster than the proposed rocket planes for this sport.

Re:The Reno Air Races Still go on you know...

[sebi]

There also is going to be an air race during the fleet week in San Francisco this weekend. That's as far away from rockets as you can get, though, since they use aerobatic planes there. And they race in turns against the clock. Still, I guess you can go and watch it for free.

Hmmm, racing rocket ships...

[bobcat7677]

You know some jokester is going to actually build a "Dr Evil" rocket shaped like a giant Johnson [space center?] and attempt to join the league. The burning questions in my mind are:

1. Will the league allow the ship with the "exciting new shape":P

2. What will the public have to say about it (snicker snicker)

and what does this have to do with rockets

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, so you watched the movie. What the hell does this have to do with the topic ?

Get ready for a sharp decline

[deft]

Get ready for a sharp decline in the "eccentric millionaire" population when this goes through.

If only selling your dotcom pre-bust or inventing the (enter last big thing here) made you a good rocket pilot =)

Re:NHRA on steroids

[poopdeville]

And what is a telephoto lens going to capture? A stationary rocket on a blue background? I'd rather watch paint dry. Or NHRA drag for that matter. At least something happens in NHRA.

Reno air races

[theycallmeB]

They are also joining forces with the organizers of the annual Reno Air Races that were held just a couple weeks ago. Similar to grand prix road races, there are several classes of air racers, the biggest and fastest being the piston-powered Unlimiteds (mostly stripped and re-engined WWII-era fighters). Courses are low to the ground and marked by giant pylons. From the article, it seems the rocket racers are planning more vertical courses so it will be intersting the see how those are plotted. Maybe GPS and a virtual track shown on a heads-up display?

For those pointing out that some people watch NASCAR mostly for the crashes, crashes at Reno usually involve a distant thud, a cloud of smoke and little good news. Everybody maintains a healthy distance between aircraft, crowd others out of the course and you get grounded, do it too often (as in more than once or twice), and you get banned.

Re:Reno air races

[Pxtl]

Really, if the reno air races can't get much public popularity, what hope do rocket races have? Plus, the simple fact is that races are much less interesting when the craft is fragile. Safety measures make sports dull, and aircraft require a lot of safety. Still, it is incredibly cool that they do that - I'd love to see it.

Personally, my approach would be to make the tracks 3D by suspending the objectives in the air. Use weather balloons tethered to the ground as wickets - all the planes have to do is get close enough to the balloon. You could probably suspend things much higher that way. So then you can have a steep climb after baloon 5. The balloons could be triggered to explode in the event a plane gets within safety range as emergency measure, allowing it to fall away harmlessly. It would also be entertaining for the fans the way crashes are "aww crap, Andretti blew up turn 6 and he's out of the race.".

Of course, the real trick would keep all the airflow from the planes from pushing the balloons around - each baloon would have to be held down by 3 or 4 cables at wide angles.

So does anyone race choppers or autogyros? Or is it all conventional prop planes?

Re:Crashes (Interview)

[Coyote]

"You know Mel, it's really a shame, and I just feel sorry for the boys. They worked all night at the launch pad to get the major-sponsor associate-sponsor contingency-award ship ready to fly, and is it time for me to change promotional ball caps yet, and we were fast and we knew when it came down to the last 20 orbits, we were going to be right up there at the front, and I'd like to thank major-sponsor again, 'cause I've only mentioned them once this breath, but you know, it's OK, 'cause we'll be back next week and we're still racking up championship points, and this major-sponsor team just has too much heart to let this get us down, and I'm too good-natured to mess up the advertising value by saying what I really think about that Jett Gordon that made me crash into the asteroid belt."

Don't you mean...

[p3d0]

2 Faster and Like 5 Times More Furiouser?

Need new tactics

[paiute]

I am guessing that drafting will not be a feasible option on this track.

Re:Heh.

[`Sean]

First reference to Wipeout XL.

SR-71 Blackbird

[VeganBob]

... would it qualify? I suppose it's governmental, not commercial, but still. I'm willing to bet it could beat most competitors in that competition, whenever it happens.

For anyone, see here, or pictures here

Re:SR-71 Blackbird

[Schaffner]

Well, there is the problem that the SR-71 is not rocket propelled. As pointed out in the Wiki article you mentioned, the SR-71 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney J58 engines that act like turbojet engines at the lower speeds and a ramjet engine at higher speeds. Still not a rocket.

Real men race airliners

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time when real men like Clay Lacy experimented with racing airliners.

But this gets my vote:

http://www.mojave.ca.us/museum/images/air/air-race s-humanfly-01-dan-hansen-8.jpg

Stone Trek?

[SWTP_OS9]

Better. As in Stone Trek. Use a magna/antimagma warped engine....

www.stonetrek.com

parent is dead-on

[Corf]

that was my first thought, too.

That, and Keanu Reeves goin' "whoa."

They'll Use That Fox Sports Hockey Puck Technology

[geoffrobinson]

Remember when Fox would change the color of the hockey puck in order to show how fast it was going?

Or maybe they can use different color smoke like in Back to the Future III.

Yep!

[SWTP_OS9]

Good point!

Just think of how hight the blimp would need to fly to get the whole thing in view!

Might as well buy a old spy sat and park it just above the cource!

Or.... Use a lot of computer simulation cut will real footage.

Bump drafting?

[bobalu]

With "20 ft bright brilliant flames out the back" I don't think we're going to see a lot bump drafting in this sport!

They're going to have a tough time with the adverts as well... the reason sponsors love those stock cars is the big signage area. It might be pretty tough to make out "Tide" at 300mph.

Also even the people who DO watch racing just for the wrecks generally cheer because they get to see the driver cheat death. Not so sure about the chances for a rocket pilot. Might depress sales of the t-shirts.

About Time

[Short Circuit]

About time someone implemented Inner Space. Can we attack our competitors? Bump into the walls? Grab fuel cans most times of the day, and tea cups in the early afternoon?

(Really a great game; You oughta check it out.)

Re:NHRA on steroids

[GreasyBloater]

And what is a telephoto lens going to capture? A stationary rocket on a blue background? I'd rather watch paint dry.

At the risk of explaining the current state of technology...

Just because the sky is blue on the original video doesn't mean that's what you see on your TV.

You don't even need any real video. Just gps in each plane. Now computers render what's going on from any perspective, and with any background they want. OK, the telephoto cameras show the actual aircraft and it's generally static... but imagine a picture-in-picture. The main screen is the virtual, the little picture is a real image. You care about the real image when black smoke is bellowing out of it, or the pilot ejects.

If you think something would be boring, you are probably right. And so they won't do that! They'll do something cooler than that.

GreasyBloater

Speed at Reno

[gr8_phk]

From what I've read, the speeds at the Reno Air Races are about double what these rocket guys are talking about. 200-300mph in a composite canard? You don't need a rocket engine for that - look at the Cozy Jet. Rockets are probably more fun to watch, but at 5000 feet?

Re:Reminds me of Air Racing, except

[RayDude]

These planes are going to be traveling at multiple times the speed of sound. Which means they can't race over populated areas because the sonic booms would disturb, shock and in some cases injur the inhabitants.

And because they are going so fast, they have to go in a straight line, or as straight as is perceivable from say a ground based observatory.

So they have to do it over land that has no population or over the ocean.

Either way, not many spectators can watch it live.

So now they have to shoot it with cameras, but from where? Another rocket plane? Not likely. The best thing is to have GPS tracking equipment on board which is then plotted on a web page and also shown on ESPN 8 (The Ocho). You watch by watching little dots move across the map at insanely fast speeds. Here's a sample of what you may see on the Tele.

Announcer 1: "Well, Jim their engines are humming and they're ready be dropped from their respective 747s, its just a matter of moments until the race is under way."

Announcer 2: "That's right John! And one hellofa race its going to be!"

Announcer 1: "And there's the master timer telling all their flight computers to initiate a full burn and release from the 747!"

Announcer 2: "Hopefully in reverse order John."

Announcer 1: "Ha Ha! Yes, hopefully in reverse order."

You see multiple views of the underside of various 747's with rocket planes dropping and then blasting away from the 747 at breathtaking speed.

Announcer 2: "Now if you're all paying attention to the GPS tracking at www.rocketrace.net..."

Announcer 1: "And we know you are, because there are over 20 million of you tuned to this webcast!"

Announcer 2: "Woe!!!! Ken Tirbanker's rocket just blew up. Ken's emergency beacon is active so we assume that his cockpit survived the explosion, lets see if we can find a satelite that could view the spectacle. And if his electronics are alive then maybe we can show his condition and talk to him while he floats to the water."

Announcer 1: "While Jim and the crew look for a satelite images and attempt to connect with Ken to discuss the explosion let me remind you that today's race is sponsored by Budwizer Beer, the beer for the Wizer beer drinker. How's it going Jim?"

Announcer 2: "We're still looking at clips, they lost Ken's uplink so the electronics are gone, hope he's okay ... [in the background] I told you we should have assigned satellites to each racer, instead of panning and scanning randomly ... yeah sure six hundred million to launch six more birds, so what, I can't find the damn video!"

Announcer 1: "The race is happening at 68 thousand feet on a course from Sydney to Los Angeles, the race is expected to last for less than two hours. At least for those who touch down in the desert. For Ken, its going to be a long couple of days."

Announcer 2: "Ah HA! We got it, where's the damn mouse, give me that! Here's, I'm putting it up on Monitor six, switch to it..."

And so on and so on.

Its all doable, its just a whole different scale...

Raydude

Like NASCAR

[wheezl]

Like NASCAR?? What good is a rocket that can only go left?

Didn't Disney do a move called

[UberHoser]

The Rocketeer ?

zam! zoom! fpshawwww!!!

crahs burn BURNNNNNNN! !!!!!

Cost and availability?

[gr8_phk]

They're building a modified Long-Ez. OK, Rutan doesn't sell plans any more, but the second version is based on the Velocity which you can buy and build in your garage. Agreed, rocket motors are a bit hard to come by, but perhaps not if you join the league. I see it as cheaper and probably safer than NASCAR. I would agree with some of your other concerns though ;-)

Rocket Jockey at HOTU

[SeanDuggan]

Try looking here. No CD music, but the game is there. They even have the LAN patch for multi-player. Only catch is that the patch to make it run in XP is a bit iffy to build.

Er....

[ear1grey]

I'm surprised, having just read through all the top rated comments, that not one of them questioned the environmental impact of this "sport".

Tom Cruise movie heaven

[zebadee]

So this is what you gey if you mix Topgun with Days of Thunder, can't wait to see the planes "rubbing" and being pushed-off after a fuel stop to save those vital seconds!

Haha, and I get to go...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet, I get to go to the October 9th EXPO with my High School, I live about three to four hours away from this!

Rule #42

[catdevnull]

In the event of vehicle malfunction, all contestants, or their estates, are responsible for re-filling any impact craters and any reforestation required by local, state of federal laws. The League will not be obligated to collect any remains so individual race teams will be required to have on hand a regulation spatula.

NASCAR?

[phriedom]

"NASCAR, Indy , and F1 are all technologically advanced machines..."

Your overall point may be fine, but calling NASCAR advanced is a bit of a stretch. They are still running pretty much the same iron-block, pushrod, carburated small-block V8 engines that they have been using for 40 years.

Re:NHRA on steroids

[Anonymous Coward]

There would be several cameras on the course, cameras attached to baloons, ground based stationary cameras, and POV cameras inside the cockpit and/or outside on the fuselage (a camera attached on the tail looking back towards the exhaust and following planes would be cool aswell).

Perhaps there will even be helicopter cameras.

Remember that this won't be a simple circular twodimensional course, it goes vertical aswell, kinda lika rollercoaster course (by judging from some of the concept pictures).

RTFA : these things are really slow

[dmh20002]

I don't get what the excitement is about.

The proposed rockets aren't supersonic, hyperpersonic, or even half-sonic. They are way too slow to win at Reno. per TFA "The rocket planes will be flying in the range of 200 to 300 miles per hour."

There are 2 or 3 classes of aircraft that go faster than that at the Reno Air Races. I don't have the exact figures at hand, but The WWII fighters do about 400-450 kts average and over 500 in the straights. The Lancairs/Questairs go somewhere in the range 300-400. at 200-300 mph there is no need to just go straight. Yea, the technology is important but these things won't be particulary exciting to watch at 5000 feet/AGL. you'll barely see them. Come to Reno. The racers go by so close to the crowd you can see the expressions on the pilots faces.

Re:Reminds me of Air Racing, except

[gekman]

Actually, if you had RTFA, you'd know that these things are only designed to do about 320 mph, and the plan is to race over land (admittedly, a LOT of land) and will follow a winding course.

Only a matter of time.

[Inside_Joke]

It was sooner than I expected, but I knew it was going to happen someday.

All forms of human transportation have come to this point eventually. Build it, and SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will want to race it.

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone talks about the crazyness of supersonic speeds - injury death and such. But 60 years now our grandchildren will laugh at how we fiered single-digit mach speeds. just as we laugh at those who think freeways speed-limits are too fast.

Slipstream 5000

[wildzer0]

Cool, this looks like an almost exact clone of the old DOS game Slipstream 5000! (Well, they don't have weapons on board I hope)

Second Wipeout Reference...

[CZA2006]

*missile* *warning* *warning* BOOOOM...

Re:NHRA on steroids

[kd5ujz]

This is simular to the new tech they are using with WRC racing. They will show a CGI overlay that they can flyby and zoom out to show the cars in relation to each other as far as time goes ( they race one at a time, and are timed).

Fly faster in an Airtran jet for $60!

[KarmaBlackballed]

>> These planes are going to be traveling at multiple times the speed of sound.

No, they are not faster than sound. You can tell from the illustrations of the modified VarEz that this is not a faster-than-sound craft: the front airfoil is not swept back. That is a very important detail.

The single prop WW2 P52 Mustang could go much faster. Most fighers of that age could.

What these toys lack in top speed, however, they will probably make up for in acceleration. I wonder what the 0 to 230MPH time is like in one of these little rocket planes?

Re:Reminds me of Air Racing, except

[john82]

These planes are going to be traveling at multiple times the speed of sound. Which means they can't race over populated areas because the sonic booms would disturb, shock and in some cases injur the inhabitants.

Say what? What spec are you reading? From the official website:

The first-generation of Mark-1 X-Racers will reach maximum speeds of more than 320 mph.

What exactly is the speed of sound? Let's consider today's conditions in Las Vegas, Nevada: 85F, 11% humidity. That would equate to 780 mph.

So the jets in question are doing less than half the speed of sound. Definitely not Mach 3.

pedestrians, too

[zogger]

I was at a bicycle race once where some ancient geezer didn't realise there was a street race going on (blocked off roads for the downtown stretch) and walked out in front of some guy bookin it on a skinny bike and got creamed and expired on the spot.

Stuff happens.....

At the drags the jet and rocket powered vehicles are always crowd favorites, I remember seeing a jet powered TRACTOR before that could run an impressive 1/4 mile.

Just reality., hoo-mannz like mechanical things that go fast, and doesn't natter what they are or what they use for motive power. Everything from gravity races (soap box derbies) to world cup sailing to a humonigigantinormus variety of engine equpped racing on or in land, sea and sky.

Scientology

[ozTravman]

Sounds like the latest scientology publication... L. Ron Hubbard says he use to race rocket cars in a past life.