Rocket Racing League Ready To Launch

capnkr sends us to Wired for the story of the long-delayed Rocket Racing League, which we discussed when it launched in 2005. It seems the league is finally ready to get off the ground. At a press conference at the Yale Club in New York, RRL CEO Granger Whitelaw said rocket-powered planes will fly their first exhibition race in August at the EAA AirVenture air show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with at least three more races to follow in 2008. "The Rocket Racing League on Monday detailed plans to move from a sci-fi fantasy to a full-fledged commercial enterprise — including 'vertical drag races' using rockets."

Comments

Space future?

[billy901]

They could possibly use this idea for future space technology testing. They could use a much smaller version of the rockets and see how well it works with earth parameters. Nasa has programs where they test rockets by racing them like this, but it's not nearly as well funded as this because this rocket program with Nasa is very experimental.

Re:Space future?

[Nyeerrmm]

That's exactly what they plan, having worked their table a couple of years ago at the X-Prize Cup. Peter Diamandis (X-Prize Foundation) and the rest of that gang are involved so their ultimate goal is to have a testing bed for new rocket technologies in the same way that Formula 1 and the rest develop automotive technologies.

Of course this is all with the provision that concept works in the first place... but then again I don't understand the popularity of watching car races either, so I can't really judge.

The rules

[Anonymous Coward]

First one back to the ground wins!

I'm a yachtie...

[The Ancients]

...and I see plenty of coin being tossed about, both here in New Zealand, and especially in the U.S. and Europe circuits. For these guys $5-10m a year is nothing to throw away on their favourite pastime. This surely has to top them all for finding ways to part overgrown rich boys and their money!

Experimental aviation

[Chairboy]

The aircraft are based off the Velocity, a popular homebuilt aircraft. Usually pushed by a prop, these planes are pretty flexible, as this novel use indicates.

There are other canard aircraft that have flown under interesting power. The LongEZ and Cozy have been built with everything from aircraft gasoline engines to jets to wankel rotaries, even rockets. Experimental aviation is the fastest developing part of general aviation, and anyone with the right commitment and willingness to learn can build a plane too.

Re:Experimental aviation

[Creepy Crawler]

I'll assume that the DIY aircraft kit also has a DIY hospital kit too..

Today's lesson: Howto build a self anesthesia surgery setup

Tomorrow: Self post-op care

Re:Experimental aviation

[evanbd]

As I'm sure you're aware, XCOR Aerospace built both the EZ-Rocket (rocket-powered LongEZ) and the first of the Rocket Racers.

They've been mentioned here recently for the upcoming Lynx spaceplane, as well.

Re:Experimental aviation

[DigiShaman]

Experimental aviation is the fastest developing part of general aviation, and anyone with the right commitment and willingness to learn can build a plane too.

I'm curious to know how that's possible. Last I heard, the FAA (in the US at least) have very tight regulations and certification requirements. It can take years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars just to break through all the legal red tape. In fact, I hear these expenditures dwarf that of R&D and material costs combined for a small company. Let's not forget that it also takes years just to pass certification on new designs.

Re:Experimental aviation

[Nyeerrmm]

Thats actually the reason why the home-builts and experimentals are so popular. It takes a lot of work to make a new factory-built plane with all the new FAA regulations, thus why you don't see that many new Cessnas around.

However, if you just sell the parts and have the customer build it themselves, and attach a big 'EXPERIMENTAL' tag to the outside those regulations don't apply. Not that I'm arguing that this makes much sense, but from what I understand thats the situation.

(I don't have much firsthand knowledge, I just read up on this a lot a couple of years ago.)

Re:Experimental aviation

[biggles69]

I have a lot of experience with home-built/experimental aviation. Generally the aircraft built by enthusiasts from either raw materials and a set of plans or a kit are better quality and built to a much higher standard of finish than the crap Cessna, Piper and the other big commercial manufacturers put out. Light experimental aircraft had glass cockpits 10+ years ago using non certified equipment that is just as good as the over priced certified equipment just getting into factory built aircraft now. The performance is also generally much better and the cost much lower partly because the product liability insurance premium on a new factory built aircraft is something like $50,000.

FAA certification really isn't that onerous. The real reason little innovation goes on with factory built aircraft is liability. The companies play it safe by sticking with the tech they have and making cosmetic changes. Unfortunately the tech they have was mostly developed in the 50's.

Vans aircraft is a pretty typical kit builder and over 5000 of their kits are completed and flying. It's not much compared to the big companies but when you consider that each one was built by the owner in his/her garage, living room or basement (people build planes in all sorts of places and sometimes have to knock out walls to get them out) then this is pretty damned impressive.

The experimental system actually makes a whole lot of sense if you want to foster innovation and are willing to let people take responsibility for their own actions. Shit it felt strange typing that in today's fucked up litigation mentality world. The aircraft are subject to FAA inspections throughout the assembly/construction process and have to fly off 40 hours in a restricted zone around a specific airport to prove they are safe but after that they can go anywhere. The only absolute prohibition on the use of experimental aircraft is in commercial operations. They are for private non profit use only. Aussie Jon Johanson flew his Vans RV-4 round the world twice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vans_RV-4.

Re:Experimental aviation

[somersault]

people build planes in all sorts of places and sometimes have to knock out walls to get them out I for one would certainly feel safe in a vehicle built and flown by someone who didn't realise that an airplane is generally bigger than a doorway ;)

Re:Experimental aviation

[GooberToo]

I'm curious to know how that's possible. Last I heard, the FAA (in the US at least) have very tight regulations and certification requirements.

That's the magic word, "certification". Experimental aircraft are just that...and they are not certified. This does not necessarily mean they are dangerous. The words, "experimental" must be visibly placard and all passengers must be notified of aircraft's experimental status.

It can take years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars just to break through all the legal red tape. In fact, I hear these expenditures dwarf that of R&D and material costs combined for a small company. Let's not forget that it also takes years just to pass certification on new designs.

And that is exactly why certified generation aviation is so far behind modern technology. This is also why an engine designed in the 1950s or perhaps the 1960s costs $25,000 - $75,000 to replace. If it were not for the FAA's certification process and scummy lawyers in general who literally double the cost of all things aviation related, that same engine would cost $10,000 - $30,000 and be far more safe and reliable. And keep in mind, with these engines, the pilot must still manually control basic things like air/fuel mixture. Heck, just fuel injection is still considered a big step up in economy and performance. If you want electronic control (FADEC), expect to add an extra $40,000 - $80,000 to the cost of your engine; if it is even available for your engine/aircraft combination.

Once you step outside of the certified arena, suddenly a whole new gambit of newer, better, and safer level of modern technology becomes available. Yet the vast majority of this technology is strictly prohibited in a certified aircraft.

As an example, thanks to the FAA, instrument rated aircraft must purchase certified clocks. This made sense forty years ago when reliable, electro-mechanical clocks were hard to find. These days, $100-$400 dollars buys you a clock which may lose seconds to minutes in a day, assuming it stays running for the entire flight. Yes, that very expensive and unreliable clock the FAA requires is actually less reliable and less accurate than the average, cheap watch people wear today. Yet, non-certified aircraft get the pleasure of a modern, highly reliable, highly precise clock for $20-$100; depending on the number of cool extras (timers, count down/up) thrown in. And if you wonder how important a clock is, watch "Hunt for Red October" and take note of them maneuvering the sub by stop-watch. It is the same for planes flying by instruments.

Don't forget, the FAA's moto is, "We're not happy until you're not happy." Even worse is, in the last decade, the FAA was been working hard to actually endanger the skies (recent inspections in the news is the tip of the iceberg) rather than actually improve public safety. The FAA is working hard to avoid Congressional oversight would allows them to publicly be seen in bed with the airlines. For the last decade, they've been forced to meet in cheap motel rooms.

If it were not for inspectors breaking the news, the public would have continued to fly un-inspected and dangerous aircraft, with the FAA's unofficial wink and nod.

Lastly, don't think that plane owners are rich, wealthy men with top hats and cigars. The majority of pilots make less than $40,000 a year. You can actually own a nice, certified plane, for less than the price of a new SUV or less. Granted, this will be a used aircraft, but it is important to remember, aircraft are maintained far better than cars and in most cases, better than homes. The older aircraft fleet's safety record is on par with newer aircraft.

Re:Experimental aviation

[GooberToo]

I for one would certainly feel safe in a vehicle built and flown by someone who didn't realise that an airplane is generally bigger than a doorway

I know you're joking but the reason for this is because people often take a decade to build their plane. This means they build it in their garage. Otherwise, they'd be paying for a very expensive hangar at an airport for the entire build. While that likely means they would build it faster, it also means it would be a second jobs rather than a labor of love.

Even after saying that, it is extremely rare for walls to have to be removed to get the aircraft out of their garage. More often than not, it is because someone built it inside their home because they didn't have a garage or room in their garage to spare.

Re:Experimental aviation

[capnkr]

Funny, somersault, I'll relay the comment. :)

For general consumption, though: My brother is building an RV-7A in his perhaps 10'x18' shop out in the garage, which itself is not large enough to hold the completed airplane. He started it in a 10'x15' miniwarehouse. He is building it in stages; tail kit first, wings nearly finished, and the fuselage kit is staged for his next step in the process. Eventually he'll load the completed parts on to a trailer, haul it to a hangar at the airport for final assembly before getting it checked over by an FAA inspector and the first flight.

It was surprising to me how little space it takes.

thing is..

[type40]

this is not really exciting for an average year at Oshkosh.
I saw 17 P-51's sitting idling waiting for clearance to taxi. I was 20 feet away from Chuck Yeagers P-51 as it sat mid pack (flock?, fight?).
I saw a Long-EZ with a pulse jet a couple of years ago.
rocket planes....boring.

*groan*

[The Ancients]

It seems the league is finally ready to get off the ground.

That was really, really, bad. Even for a /. summary.

What, Darwin isn't working fast enough?

[Theatetus]

Patience, people, the gene pool will weed you out on its own.

Relevant links and additional info

[FleaPlus]

The summary mentions the article but doesn't seem to actually link to it. I think it's referring to this one.

Here's the summary I submitted earlier, which includes a link to a different (IMHO more informative) article, mentions the surprise involvement of Armadillo Aerospace (John Carmack's company), and a liveblogging of the press conference:

Armadillo Aerospace Building Racing Rocket Engines

The Rocket Racing League made several announcements today, including a partnership with Armadillo Aerospace, the rocketry company run by game programming demigod John Carmack. The first exhibition races will be at the EAA AirVenture air show in early August, where League rocketplanes using engines produced by both XCOR and Armadillo will fly. The RRL hopes that the rocketplanes will be a testbed for new technologies which will feed into the wider aviation and aerospace market. There's also a pretty spiffy photo showing Armadillo's rocket firing

Re:What I really wonder

[GooberToo]

On your typical car, rear wings are completely ineffective unless speeds of 120-150MPH are reached. And at that point, it only starting to exert any significant down pressure. On production sports cars, the effective speed is somewhat lowered to 100-125.

In reality, the rear wing on most any streetable car is there strictly for cosmetics.

What's even more funny are the cars that have wings that pop up and down (some Porches and Crossfire, for example). The mechanism can't support more than 200lbs of downward force yet were supposed to believe it helps the handling of the vehicle. To be effective, these things really need to exert many, many hundreds, if not thousands of lbs of downward force. Remember, it needs to counteract the forces which are attempting to lift the vehicle off the ground. This is one of many reasons why breaking 200mph is so dang hard. It also explains why the 200-club is still so small, even at point in time.

Now, contrast that with wings on dragsters. Make note of where the wings are typically placed and the overall scale of it. Notice it is placed directly into or above the slipstream of the vehicle; which is in stark contrast to most production vehicles, where it is placed well under the slipstream of a vehicle at any legal street speed.

Old School winner!

[Lost Penguin]

Rocket racing was old school, it went out in the 60s.Turboniques?

Re:Try keeping THAT "Carbon Neutral"

[John Carmack]

Not that I give a damn about being carbon neutral, but our rocket engines do burn ethanol.

John Carmack

Re:What I really wonder

[Fifth Earth]

*sigh*

You, like so many supposedly "rational" people, have fallen into the aerodynamics trap. Yes, 90% of bolt-on aftermarket aerodynamic devices are useless crap. On the other hand, the simple truth is that 1: almost everyone overestimates how fast you have to go to generate meaningful force from a well-designed wing, and 2: almost everyone overestimates how much force is needed to be meaningful.

Wings can produce significant downforce at speeds significantly less than 120 MPH. How do I know this? Basic real-world examples. Rally cars rarely top 100 mph, and yet feature prominent wings and other aero devices (it's worth noting that the sort of bizarre crap they stick all over rally cars also most closely resembles the exact sorts of modifications people criticize most on road cars--the difference of course being that rally teams know what they're doing and the crap actually works). If they didn't work, the teams wouldn't use them. Even Formula 1 cars spend most of their cornering time, when aero devices are most needed, at sub 120 mph speeds. In fact, a modern F1 car generates its own weight in downforce at around a mere 80 mph.

You say that wings have to produce many hundreds or even thousands of pounds of force to be meaningful. This is ridiculous. "Thousands of pounds of force" are only generated by the most extremely tuned cars--most common racing cars (nascar, rally cars, touring cars) produce far less. Yes, a F1 car can generate perhaps 3000 pounds of downforce at its highest speeds. However, ANY amount of downforce is valuable, even the 200 pounds you say Porsches can't handle more than. On a typical car, that's an extra 7%+ relative to the real weight of the car, a small but not trivial amount.

Besides, a wing doesn't have to produce net downforce to be useful. It can shape the airflow over the car to reduce or eliminate aerodynamic lift, a problem that plagues most production cars. A prime example is the older Audi TT, a car that was notorious for generating so much rear lift at freeway speeds that it was potentially unsafe. Later versions all came with a small spoiler that fixed this issue, before the car was totally redesigned. These changes don't have to be huge and dramatic to work--compare a Nissan 350z with the zero-lift package to the standard model. It's also worth noting that the zero-lift Nissan also has less aerodynamic drag than the normal model, which raises another point--aerodynamic devices aren't just for producing downforce, but can in some cases actually make the car more aerodynamic.

Re: the 200 mph club, the problem is not so much a matter of aerodynamic stability as it is just one of drag and horsepower. Yes, it is important to have a reasonably stable car at those speeds, but just look at a Bentley Flying Spur, which has no outwardly obvious aerodynamic devices at all (okay, so it "only" goes 195). The reason it doesn't go any faster is not because it's unstable--it's because the poor Bentley's "mere" 552 Hp can't push it any faster. Many older Le mans cars could top 200 mph, but they actually generated lift at those speeds (drivers had balls of titanium in those days). Stability is good, but it's not why 200 mph is uncommon, it's because you need a honking huge engine and few cars have that.

Dragsters are such an extreme example that they basically don't even matter to the argument. A vehicle that can reach speeds in excess of 300 mph within 400 meters, and which can accelerate at over 5.5 Gs, is not a reasonable comparison to anything one might consider a normal car. Yes, they raise their wings high up into the clean air to get maximum effectiveness, and this principle universally applies, but this doesn't mean that any wing that isn't ludicrously tall is useless. It just means that normal cars don't have the same ultra-extreme requirements of dragsters.

Okay, I'm done now.