Successful Engine Test in UK For Planned 1000 mph Car

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Successful Engine Test in UK For Planned 1000 mph Car

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 4, 2012 @04:00AM from the pop-quiz-how-long-can-it-run-in-the-uk dept.

amkkhan writes with this excerpt from International Science Times: "Scientists aiming to create a car that can break 1,000 mph cleared a large hurdle yesterday when they successfully tested their rocket engine. The engine will power the supersonic car known as the Bloodhound SSC — meant to become the fastest car in the world. The British team tested the engine in an aircraft shelter in Newquay Cornwall Airport, originally designed to protect fighter planes from bombs. Although the data hasn't fully been analyzed, the researchers said the engine reached 30,000 horsepower during the 10-second burn. Given enough time, they expect the engine to reach 80,000 horsepower and 27,500 pounds of thrust."

187 of 262 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by crazyjj · 2012-10-04 04:00 · Score: 5, Funny

I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass. I got $200 and and '86 Silverado (that just needs a new transmission) that I'm willing to part with, if you're interested in selling the engine after you break that record.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by jenningsthecat · 2012-10-04 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass.
  Is your 'old girl' a rear-engine design? If not, you may be out of luck...
  
  --
  'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
2. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by LordLimecat · 2012-10-04 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  And apparently you build strawmen.
3. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by ackthpt · 2012-10-04 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  I just got my old girl primered and re-upholstered and I'm thinking a new engine would really make her kick ass.
  Is your 'old girl' a rear-engine design? If not, you may be out of luck...
  Firebirds of that era were front engine. I think Pontiac made anything but the Fiero with front engine and the Fiero is a frightening drive with the engine it had (I whipped out a few times in mine and it always spun around with the rear of the car going in the direction of travel. Couldn't sell that thing fast enough.)
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
4. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Racemaniac · 2012-10-04 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he just wants to go backwards really fast? :)
5. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by cyberchondriac · 2012-10-04 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  You don't read much, do you?
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
6. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Rhacman · 2012-10-04 05:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  With 27,500 pounds of thrust, I don't think where you mount the engine on that vehicle will affect the end result much, that is, when what's left returns to a solid phase of matter.
  
  --
  Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
7. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You need to go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.
  Your incorrect assumption is that Christians follow the teachings of Christ, which is completely wrong.
8. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by mcgrew · 2012-10-04 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, I've seen rocket or jet powered, formerly front engine cars. You don't even have to remove the original engine, you mount the rocket in the trunk.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
9. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Sulphur · 2012-10-04 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe he just wants to go backwards really fast? :)
  He could call it "Crayfish 1000."
10. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by JonahsDad · 2012-10-04 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really, just sounds like the engine needs to go into a VW Bug (classic, obviously)
11. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by ravenscar · 2012-10-04 07:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No - the incorrect assumption is that you can't help people without doing so via the government. I'm not a Christian, but I've spent a significant amount of time studying the teachings the Bible purports to be his (in a collegiate setting). I don't recall Jesus or his disciples ever telling their followers to petition their government to enact laws to help people. They told their followers to help people directly.
  Most Christians don't follow that teaching either, but those who do are far more impactful than any of us who simply pay taxes and figure we've done our part.
12. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People have been giving alms to the poor throughout the middle ages, and up until now. Government programs to help lift people out of poverty (such as by providing free education) have only been around perhaps 150 years or so. All that private charity did absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate grinding poverty, yet government provision of services (mostly education) has created a giant and prosperous middle class and a strong economy in all developed nations.
  Paying your taxes (to whichever part of the government funds education) does a LOT more than giving money to some charity.
13. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by drinkypoo · 2012-10-04 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  the Fiero is a frightening drive with the engine it had (I whipped out a few times in mine and it always spun around with the rear of the car going in the direction of travel. Couldn't sell that thing fast enough.)
  You're supposed to put good shocks and springs on it, and vastly more rubber in the back, then you can actually drive it. And there's room for a 327.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by WGFCrafty · 2012-10-04 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Done with an Impala, kind of.
15. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by ravenscar · 2012-10-04 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think we're arguing on different topics and that, as a whole, we don't necessarily disagree. I stated that Jesus never commanded his people to help via government programs. I also stated that people who invest themselves in helping people directly are far more impactful than people who simply pay taxes.
  I don't see an objection to either of my points. Instead, you seem to imply that someone paying taxes is far more effective than someone giving money to charity. The example you give here is alms to the poor. That's really reaching for the worst possible example of charity. After all, it was a practice that more or less transformed into a mechanism whereby the ruling class could keep the poor completely destitute - promoted by the church and handily adopted by the government (though the two weren't altogether separate at the time).
  I think that there are far more effective charitable endeavors. Evidently, so does the US Gverment who provides funding for a vast number of charities because it believes they are better prepared to address problems at the local level.
  All that aside, this point isn't really germane as I'm talking about helping people directly - not necessarily via a charity. Quite a bit apart from what you think I'm saying, I don't think that helping people directly has to be exclusive of paying taxes. I simply believe that those who help directly (help - not hurt as was part of the alms program) can have a greater impact. Don't get me wrong, I see what you are saying - the government allows resources of a great many to be combined; creating substantial impact in a broad area. I don't think it manifests itself the same way at the individual level. There is a family here that has taken in numerous teens that would have otherwise been homeless (in spite of government programs designed to help them). They have raised them as their own and seen most of them off to healthy adult lives. I'd gather that these people have had far more impact on their community than those of their neighbors who simply pay their taxes in full each year. Imagine if the whole world was full of people like this...
  It isn't, thus the need for government intervention, but hopefully you now see where I'm coming from when I refer to the impact that an individual can make by directly helping their neighbors.
16. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  I stated that Jesus never commanded his people to help via government programs.
  That's true, but you have to look at the context of the times. Jesus lived in a land that was under occupation by a foreign imperial power. The government that was in place didn't really do anything for the people of that area, they just took taxes and built roads and such to support their trade networks, since that's what made the empire rich. They didn't have government programs like in the modern sense, and I'm pretty sure they didn't provide an education to people in their territories either.
  I'm not saying all charity is useless or anything like that, but if you really want to improve peoples' lives, there's two things that have been proven to have the biggest effect in actually eliminating poverty and helping people have better lives: the first is education, the second is health care. And both of those work a lot better when they're run by a government rather than charity services. Your family that took in homeless teens did good, but those teens would not have healthy adult lives if they had no education and were illiterate, and I'm guessing this family didn't do that for them, they just sent them to existing free government-run schools. Just keeping kids in your house for 18 years and feeding them does not turn them into healthy adults; they have to have a proper education to be an effective part of modern society, and not that many people have the ability or desire to homeschool their kids (and many who do do a terrible job of it, though lots do a great job so I'm not saying homeschooling is bad in all cases). To be a healthy adult, a child needs a good home to grow up in, and a decent education; it's really hard to achieve a decent adulthood without both. The family you speak of provided one of those when no one else would (sadly, foster care programs seem to universally suck), but the government most likely provided the other.
17. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by L3370 · 2012-10-04 11:51 · Score: 2
  
  How about, "Render unto Caesar."
  
  ???
18. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Only if you don't mind having to drop the subframe to actually change spark plugs/do oil changes/replace accessories that are prone to failure such as the alternator or starter. I'd love a lift at my home, but I can't quite swing it yet.
19. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not classic, but done before: http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/
20. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by drinkypoo · 2012-10-05 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, dropping a subframe is no big deal, but I wouldn't want to have to do it a lot. I had it off my 240SX a couple times for differential swaps and I've half-dropped it on my 300SD to replace the rear springs.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Dusty101 · 2012-10-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Since this is Slashdot, I should probably note that there is prior art for this:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_Pursuit_Vehicle :-)
22. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  They also rely on the government for things like national defense (which they don't pay for), and have a closed society that can't handle the modern world or technology (they use some technology, but their society is completely incapable of producing its own technology). They're basically like leaches on modern society. They can survive because they can produce agricultural and handcrafted products for sale to the outside world, but modern society would never be able to survive if everyone adopted their way of living.
23. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, dropping a subframe is no big deal, but I wouldn't want to have to do it a lot. I had it off my 240SX a couple times for differential swaps and I've half-dropped it on my 300SD to replace the rear springs.
  The big v8 that you're referring to doesn't have any motor mounts up top to hold it in place when you drop that subframe is my understanding, so it's "remove the engine and transmission", which gets involved with disconnecting a boatload of stuff that has to be attached to the body. As you indicate "not fun". I'm unclear if the factory engines had top side support or not, but seeing as how it was effectively a FWD drivetrain (lifted out something else as I recall), I wouldn't be surprised.
  I do agree that the Fiero was possibly one of the most underrated pieces from GM at the time. I do wish the i4 that they'd put in it wasn't so anemic. It might have really given the MR2 a run for it's money. Except for the entire "GM quality" thing. The 80s were not a good time for NA manufacturers in the quality department.
24. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by tehcyder · 2012-10-05 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately for you Christians and Republicans, a fair society depends on everyone getting help when they need it, not just when someone condescends to lend a hand if they feel like it.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
25. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by ackthpt · 2012-10-05 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, dropping a subframe is no big deal, but I wouldn't want to have to do it a lot. I had it off my 240SX a couple times for differential swaps and I've half-dropped it on my 300SD to replace the rear springs.
  The big v8 that you're referring to doesn't have any motor mounts up top to hold it in place when you drop that subframe is my understanding, so it's "remove the engine and transmission", which gets involved with disconnecting a boatload of stuff that has to be attached to the body. As you indicate "not fun". I'm unclear if the factory engines had top side support or not, but seeing as how it was effectively a FWD drivetrain (lifted out something else as I recall), I wouldn't be surprised.
  I do agree that the Fiero was possibly one of the most underrated pieces from GM at the time. I do wish the i4 that they'd put in it wasn't so anemic. It might have really given the MR2 a run for it's money. Except for the entire "GM quality" thing. The 80s were not a good time for NA manufacturers in the quality department.
  I had my Fiero, built to order with everything but about two accessories. The day I picked it up and drove it home from the dealership I wondered why the stick shifted so badly. That was the beginning of the end of the love affair with the car. The rear brakes would freeze because the springs for expanding the caliper were weak (garage mechanic explained this to me) plus the gooseneck the parking brake cable went through was prone to seizing up due to corrosion (Michigan and its fabulous road salt.) Leaky sunroof, mysterious fasteners falling out from under the dash, interior shreading because it was installed too taut. The final straw was a borken headbolt at 30,025 miles, 25 over warranty for the powertrain. On an engine rated for 4,500 RPM red-line I was exasperated (my other car, a 1965 Olds with a 425 ci V8 redlined at 5,500 RPM, bit of a difference in build quality there) There were tales of common engine fires and cracked blocks, though I never experienced either of those.
  The epitaph of the Fiero was: Brilliant design, but killed by the bean-counters who shopped around GM for the components to put it together. The MR2 was done correctly and utterly punished GM for their failings. As I understand the power train for the Fiero was designed by engineers to be all new and purposefully built for that car (which would have made it legend), but rumor was the Corvette team worried it would draw off sales, so the FWD power train of the Chevy Citation was worked to install backward and the stick operate the transmission by cable, which is largely why shifting gears in the 4 spd was such a pain.
  Rather than do the job right, GM did it the GM way and Fiero became a running joke, which eventually closed the plant and ended the run of a car which had so much promise.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
26. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Thus the "GM quality" statement.... And unfortunately it wasn't just GM... I don't know of a well built car from the big 3 from basically the late 70s to the early 90s. Some would say mid 2000 is when they finally turned the corner, but there were hints of it before.
27. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by drinkypoo · 2012-10-05 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  The MR2 was done correctly
  Yes, it's a fairly direct copy of the X1/9, rather than an attempt to invent a mid-rear platform out of nothing...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
28. Re:Will that there engine fit in my '79 Firebird? by mcgrew · 2012-10-06 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  They did. I remember reading an article back in the seventies. The bug went airborne, iirc (and I probably don't, that was a long time ago) it was 195 mph when it left the ground.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-04 04:06 · Score: 1

I used to think this kind of stuff was pretty amazing. It certainly used to be amazing for a car to go hundreds of miles an hour. Now I think it's getting to the realms of stupidity. It's pretty likely that more people are going to die doing this stuff, but for what?
I think this type of research would be better directed towards getting planes to go faster, not cars. There is probably a lot of overlap though, since basically all of the challenge here will be the aerodynamics.
Alternatively, doing the same challenge without allowing rockets would be damn cool. I just don't get the point of rocket cars.

--
which is totally what she said
1. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by dave420 · 2012-10-04 04:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics. That's why it's being partly-funded by the government, including the loan of some Typhoon engines. It's not just rich guys going "what what" and driving like idiots - they actually put some thought into it. They tour the car model around schools and get the kids to make projects based on it. The car is also not a rocket car, but a rocket/jet hybrid. It has a rocket engine (which uses a Formula-1 car as the oxidiser pump - that in itself is pretty cool), strapped to one of the engines from a Eurofighter jet (the aforementioned Typhoon engine). It's a really fascinating project.
2. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-04 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.
  And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-10-04 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  I just don't get the point of rocket cars.
  Because we were all twelve once?
4. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by SuricouRaven · 2012-10-04 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Planes already went fast. Supersonic passanger jet technology was introduced long ago. The difficult part is making it financially viable in the current economy - Concorde just cost too much to run.
  
  The focus of civilian aviation now isn't on speed, but cost - finding new ways to make the planes ever more economical to operate, either by increasing fuel efficiency (Fuel being a major cost) or to cram more paying passangers onboard to reduce the per-passanger cost.
5. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by veganboyjosh · 2012-10-04 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  In order for a 1,000 mph car to be approved for driving/testing by a human, i would imagine the funding agencies would require all kinds of safety gear. if, through the development of new safety tech brings us some new breakthrough that scales down/back and makes 80 mph crashes much safer, isn't that a worthwhile pursuit?
6. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Ogi_UnixNut · 2012-10-04 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But far more boring to most kids. I admit, it sounds pretty boring to me too, even if it is the more responsible goal to aim for. The UK has a problem with getting kids interested in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths). Most kids love explosions, fire, noise and power. You lecture them on how you can make a car go 1000 miles on a gallon of fuel, and most would probably fall asleep.
  This however, is fast, noisy, pushes science/engineering to its limits, and shoots a massive jet of fire out the back, what's not to love? It gets kids excited, which is its primary goal, it is an excellent world showcase for the high-technology design/manufacturing that the UK still has, and installs some pride in the UK populace. It is not a blueprint for all future cars, so the fact it gets 0.04mpg (uk gallons) is irrelevant, especially as it will probably only run a few times in its life.
  Not to fret though, there are lots of challenges every year to see who can get the best mpg (I think we're up to 350mpg on diesel). Different strokes for different folks and all that. There is a lot of work on both sides of the fence :)
7. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-04 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  I guess I'm maybe speaking to the wrong crowd since Americans are really into their drag racing, but I prefer cars that can turn corners well too. I love rallying and other types of motor racing. There's little practical purpose in being able to go over 200mph in a car though, given current roads. And you can still have flames shooting out of the exhaust in an ICE :D
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
8. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-10-04 04:38 · Score: 3
  
  But for a twelve year old kid, there's just something about the idea of strapping yourself to a missile for no other reason than to go really, really, really fast. Turns are great, and I agree, but come on - 1,000 mph? I'd do it, and I'm a full-grown human. Now imagine being a little kid and seeing this thing tearing ass across the desert.
  In the words of the immortal bard, Shakespeare, "FUCK YEAH."
9. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Obfuscant · 2012-10-04 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.
  
  So they will use Raspberry Pis to control the engine and autopilot it on city streets?
10. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by triffid_98 · 2012-10-04 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  There's little practical purpose in being able to go over 200mph in a car though, given current roads
  Given that you're on an island 200 miles across, I'm going to strongly agree with that...and some of us Americans also enjoy cars that can turn both left AND right.
11. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.
  And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
  Wrong room. You want down the hall, 3rd on left. This is the room for the 1000 gpm car.
12. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by vux984 · 2012-10-04 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  The focus of civilian aviation now isn't on speed, but cost - finding new ways to make the planes ever more economical to operate, either by increasing fuel efficiency (Fuel being a major cost) or to cram more paying passangers onboard to reduce the per-passanger cost.
  Ah, well if we aren't focussed on speed and want to optimize per passenger cost -- that's a solved problem too; they are called boats. :)
13. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-10-04 04:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you want to see a raw speed challenge that uses a number of reciprocating piston engines you should go check out speed week at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I don't know how many rocket or jet vehicles compete but there are a number of regular vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and a ton of categories to compete in. I would love to go some day when I complete my project car.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
14. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-10-04 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Already been done and beaten by an order of magnitude. Much like these ultra fast vehicles you wouldn't use it as a daily driver though.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
15. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by triffid_98 · 2012-10-04 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
  I believe those are the ones with the bicycle pedals and the streamers sticking out of the handlebars
16. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by hobarrera · 2012-10-04 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I mean, it would make no sense to have really-long-distance-highways with self-driving-buses in a couple of decades, right?
17. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by hackertourist · 2012-10-04 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of people (including schools) doing that, and one does not preclude the other.
18. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by TheRaven64 · 2012-10-04 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, they're not. Boats are much more efficient for cargo, but a fast boat from the UK to the USA takes over a week. That means that you need to take enough food for a week, have enough space to keep people entertained for a week, have people employed to clean the cabins en voyage and so on. Your passengers also have to be able to spare a week or two each way for the journey. Boats are fine for short trips, although loading and unloading can quickly become a bottleneck, which drives up the cost because harbour space is a finite resource.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
19. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by 0111+1110 · 2012-10-04 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why we don't like to buy cars made in our own country. Maybe in some distant future our automotive engineers will discover the magical secrets of turning. Until then we just have to stick to European and (occassionally) Japanese cars.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
20. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by dpilot · 2012-10-04 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  I used to live less than a mile up the road from where Art Arfons built the Green Monsters. Back in the day, he used surplus jet engines from the B58 Hustler program. You could hear it at our house when he test-fired.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
21. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-10-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to see a raw speed challenge that uses a number of reciprocating piston engines you should go check out speed week at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I don't know how many rocket or jet vehicles compete but there are a number of regular vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and a ton of categories to compete in. I would love to go some day when I complete my project car.
  There used to be a saying at speed week. "If you want a tee shirt, go 200 mph. If you want respect, you need to go at least 300 mph." It's been a while since I've paid attention, but there used to be a lot of WWII drop tanks that were converted into vehicles. I don't recall much about rocket powered ones after the Budweiser rocket. It just feels like cheating if you are basically flying a missile really low and dragging some wheels along for the ride. Granted, you have to have a pair to be willing to ride something like that, but it's still a lot easier than something that's wheel driven.
22. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't mean the kids can't try it for themselves. In fact, most efforts like this one get reproduced over and over again so that new people learn from it.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
23. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  I have to agree, this project is a total waste of time. It's really nothing more than sticking an aircraft engine in a car. We have lots of places that can go faster than 1000 mph; we've been building mach 2+ planes for decades now. The SR-71 could go Mach 3 IIRC, and that was built in the late 50s or early 60s. There's no point in making a "car" that goes that fast, when you can only do it at the Bonneville Salt Flats, and it has zero practical application. It's not like we can make passenger cars go any faster safely. Even if we went to all-driverless robotic cars, they're not going to drive that much faster than people-driven cars, and lots of cars today can go 150mph easily, there's no technical challenge there. Just go buy a BMW or a Ferrari or a Lamborghini and you're done.
  So they've done a successful test of a turbine engine. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? We've been building jet engines this powerful (and more) for decades now. Any modern fighter jet has an engine at least this powerful. You want a powerful jet engine? Go buy one from Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce. They make tons of them. It's nothing special. Oh, it's a rocket engine? Whoopee, we've been building rocket engines much more powerful than this for decades too. And why on earth would you build a rocket engine for an earth-bound vehicle, where oxygen in the atmosphere is plentiful?
  If they wanted to do something interesting and useful, they'd build an electric vehicle, or some kind of automated people transport, something that shows where technology is headed.
24. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to break it to you, but American cars have gotten a lot better at turning in the last decade or two, at least compared with the run-of-the mill Japanese cars. I've rented a bunch of different cars over the last years, and the American cars like the Chrysler 200, Ford Fusion, and Chevy Impala had handling just as good as the Mitsubishi Galant and Nissan Altima and Toyota Corolla I drove (which is to say, they were all competent for 4-door sedans but were pretty sloppy IMO).
25. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really feel like commenting on myself, but you have a bit of a point, lots of people have hobbies doing things that aren't ground-breaking at all. However, they also don't spend enormous sums of money on these hobbies, it's just something to do in their spare time and generally doesn't cost much, or it's making something that you can't get for a cheap price because of the labor involved.
  If you want an example of a much more useful rich-person's hobby, I saw a program a while ago about a guy who built his own submarine (or rather, had it built for him). Now, we've had submarines for ages too, but not like this one: he wanted a submarine that had a giant window in the front so it felt like you were really underwater, able to see everything, instead of feeling like you're in a tin can with no windows. It cost a couple million dollars, but he got it built, and it was pretty cool. It didn't break and speed or depth records, but there aren't many submarines in the world that offer the experience this one does; you can dive to shipwrecks and see them close-up without having to be a scuba diver (and can dive deeper than most scuba divers anyway).
  Finally, judging by TFA, this doesn't look like a hobby at all, it looks like these people are being paid for this silly project by public donations. What for? It's a waste of money; these donations could be funding a far more useful project.
26. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Chrisq · 2012-10-04 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actual research to make airplanes go faster has long since reached the point of diminishing returns.
  The guys designing scramjets and hypersonic craft probably disagree. Of course you could be right and these may remain on the drawing board, but time will tell
27. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by triffid_98 · 2012-10-04 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  American engineers figured that out quite some time ago. I believe they have an entire class of cars specifically designed around this...what do you call it. 'Sport' ?
28. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Jonathan+A · 2012-10-04 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  But mpg wouldn't make sense without liquid fuel.
  Maybe we could use MPGe.
29. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Jonathan+A · 2012-10-04 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  This is the room for the 1000 gpm car.
  LOL. I read that as 1000 gallons per minute. :)
30. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Jonathan+A · 2012-10-04 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
  It's called a bicycle. Get off your lazy butt and try using one.
  Only if I don't have to wear a helmet! ;)
31. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by kevkingofthesea · 2012-10-04 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's only off by a factor of about 2 if the above quoted 0.04 mpg is correct.
32. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by mcgrew · 2012-10-04 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  They've already gone a bit faster than mach 1 in a rocket car, several years ago. It isn't like they're driving these things on a public highway, or even a race track. It's in the salt flats in the middle of the desert.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
33. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by TheRaven64 · 2012-10-04 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  An unmanned boat would not really make sense for carrying passengers...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
34. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by triffid_98 · 2012-10-04 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  There is this rather twisty road course in Germany that Europeans seem overly fond of...
  
  I see a number of different American cars with quick lap times, but since you only want one you can take your pick
35. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by gnasher719 · 2012-10-04 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
  Why not try both? Start with a car that uses one gallon per hour. Then see how fast you can get it while still using one gallon per hour.
36. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by jareth-0205 · 2012-10-04 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  This however, is fast, noisy, pushes science/engineering to its limits, and shoots a massive jet of fire out the back, what's not to love? It gets kids excited,
  Fuck, *I* get excited at this. When did we become so boring on this site that we have to defend anything that's not a perfect virtuous environmental project?
37. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably true, but it's really beside the point. If you're an American, living in America, buying a JDM-spec car isn't feasible; your choices of "Japanese cars" are limited to the stuff they sell at dealerships here, which are USDM-spec models. The European automakers probably do a lot of the same stuff with their cars.
  Personally, my car is an Acura Integra with stiffened suspension, so that's my reference point. All other cars feel like crap to me, at least the rentals I've driven, though I did get to briefly ride in an Infiniti G35/37 a while ago that seemed to handle well, though I wasn't driving so it's hard to tell exactly.
38. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  I want a HDI (Hydrazine Direct Injected) big block V8 to put into my 57 Fiat 600!
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
39. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-04 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  And you think these buses would be doing 1000mph? On wheels which will basically melt through any rubber on them or need their bearings replaced every few miles? You'd be far better off with something like a maglev train.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
40. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-04 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you lose stability and take off or roll at 1000mph, you're simply going to die, and no amount of roll cages, airbags and what-have-you are going to help. These guys risk their lives in the same way that a test pilot does, though in fact I'd say the risk is a lot worse. They don't have the option of ejecting (that I'm aware of).
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
41. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-04 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't. These things are about the least safe type of vehicle you can be in. I think I'd rather take my chances riding a rocket into orbit. At least then you only have to worry about the rocket itself blowing up, there's no need to worry about miniscule bumps in the road or the wheels/bearings melting.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
42. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by veganboyjosh · 2012-10-04 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's kind of my point. You are correct; roll cages or airbags are going to help. But in the process of figuring out something ENTIRELY NEW that is a viable safety measure, commuter car traffic can become safer.
43. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-04 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's more of a cost thing than a technology thing. That rich billionaire twat survived his Ferrari Enzo taking off and hitting a telegraph pole at 200mph or something silly like that. Race drivers can survive crashes because they have roll cages. Most people don't buy a car that can withstand that kind of problem. And again, at 1000mph unless you have a LOT of space for your magical new invention to slow you down in before you hit something, you're going to die. Even if you eject in a big, impervious inflatable ball and roll along the ground the g-forces from rotating would probably kill you. The only real thing I see being any use is an ejector seat, though for that you have to have the vehicle facing upright, and at 1000mph in an accident the chances of you being upright for long aren't very high..
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
44. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-10-05 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  I check them out every once and a while and it looks like belly tanks are still a popular choice of vehicles. Once you get away from the stream liners there is a surprising variety of vehicles. Personally I don't think I will ever be able to to a trip down the long course but I am curious what a MG A-series engine can do in a midget. Much like the people with the old 36 bhp VW air cooled engines that have been extensively modified but still go out to speed week. I would love to break 200 mph in my midget but know that it would be difficult but doable with the 4 banger.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
45. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Name one American "sports" car that can do more than drive in a straight line?
  Since no qualification for price tag was listed, I can rattle off a few easily:
  Corvette ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yKb6iSWc0k ), despite it's archaic rear suspension that's been updated probably nearly as far as it can be.
  Cadillac CTS-V ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky8ZiO6ebn0 ). I'm not clear if they use the same rear suspension as the Corvette tho.
  Viper ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUK2ZmDz7eo ).
  Panoz, though I don't have any video of them handy.
  Ford GT, sadly no longer manufactured.
  Saleen makes a few things that are nice.
  Supposedly the new Camaro ZL-1 is quick, but it could be argued that's a Holden from Oz. Same goes for the Pontiac G8, which was once claimed to potentially be real competition for the M5. I'd have to see a side-by-side to really be convinced of that however.
  That said, I prefer the old British superlights and stuff derived from those ideas. The Miata's probably one of the best value for money in the small sports car market currently, followed by the BRZ/FR-S (which I sincerely hope the aftermarket embraces just as much as they have the NA/NB Miata), Impreza, and Evolution that you can get in the states. If you're willing to spend a little more, I've read that the BMW 1 series is nice, particularly in the hideously expensive (for the class) 1 series M. That does make me a little sad.
46. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Dusty101 · 2012-10-05 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  A few years ago, I went to a talk by the chief structural engineer of the Thrust SSC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC), the first car to break the sound barrier. One of the challenges they had to overcome was actually preventing the thing either taking off or plowing itself into the ground. The wheels alone were a major feat of engineering. The thing went so fast that you actually hit the horizon point very quickly. His discussion of the F1-style steering (but with the turning scaled down dramatically) was pretty interesting too.
  One of the best bits of the talk was when he explained how the thing was more-or-less all volunteer effort, & the tea lady (whom I think was the wife of one of the engineering crew) doubled as the camera crew as well. Apparently, she took a camcorder up with her in the passenger seat of a two-seat microlight to get some footage from the air above the test plains as the car went past. The footage was really impressive and dramatic, & you can clearly see the bow shock picked out in 2D in the dust in front of the car as it blasts along (almost like something from a Roadrunner cartoon, but in real life). Then, a couple of seconds or so later, the microlight (carrying the camera, tea lady & all) suddenly jerks alarmingly and drops quite a bit, demonstrating beautifully that the bow shock is actually 3D...
  So yeah: still pretty cool, actually.
47. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by Dusty101 · 2012-10-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Apologies for responding to my own post, but I forgot to point out that Thrust SSC didn't use rocket motors: it was a jet car. It's my recollection that Guinness actually keeps track of different land speed records, based on whether the car's a rocket-powered vehicle, jet-powered, conventional fuel, solar, etc.
48. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by tehcyder · 2012-10-05 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  This project is being used to get kids interested in science, technology, and mathematics.
  And what about a 1000 mpg car? Sounds much more interesting to me.
  You're not a kid are you?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
49. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by dave420 · 2012-10-05 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  That would have been a rocket *sled*, not a rocket *car*.
50. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by tehcyder · 2012-10-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  You should move to europe or japan and keep their shitcans off our roads, you cunt. You buy those cars because it makes you look cool to other like-minded cunts. Meanwhile, real Americans know that you're just a cunt.
  The best auto technology has all been invented right here in the U.S.A.
  Your mummy just called you upstairs for dins dins, have you gone deaf from masturbating or something?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
51. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by dave420 · 2012-10-05 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's being paid for partly by public funds as it's being used to get kids interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It's also not a rocket car, but a rocket/jet hybrid, so it's a lot different to simply being a plane on the ground. It seriously would help your argument if you read about the project before commenting massively on its shortcomings; shortcomings which don't seem to actually exist.
52. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by dave420 · 2012-10-05 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies - yes, mach 1 was achieved by ThrustSSC (the same guys as this project) in 1997. And it wasn't a rocket car, but a jet car, with 2 jet engines.
53. Re:I used to think this stuff was cool by somersault · 2012-10-05 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I found it cool back then. Breaking the sound barrier in a car felt like some kind of achievement for humanity. This just feels like more of the same.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
Laugh-a while you can, a-monkey boy! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 04:08 · Score: 1

The rocket is the EASY part. What we need to know is, how is work on the Oscillation Overthruster going?
Rockets have kicked in yo by hattig · 2012-10-04 04:09 · Score: 1

Sweet, this'll make my commute sound* awesome.
* but I'll still be stuck in a traffic jam
On a more serious note, I guess it's pretty neat that they've designed a rocket that runs along the ground without taking off or digging itself into a crater, but what does it really prove in the end? It's just a record speed. Oh well, it's there to be done I guess, and that's a good reason.
1. Re:Rockets have kicked in yo by Relayman · 2012-10-04 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Traffic jam? There will be no traffic jam once this car goes through.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
2. Re:Rockets have kicked in yo by idontgno · 2012-10-04 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  I dunno. Will the vehicles be reduced to a fine gel, or will there be chunks and perhaps a few whole vehicles? The former would be traffic jelly; the latter would, in fact, be traffic jam.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
lol by slashmydots · 2012-10-04 04:10 · Score: 1

Did anyone else read that as MPG? I read the whole summary and was like "REALY??!!!!?!?!!?!?!!" Anyway, this is a 2-stage car that uses a jet engine to get past 200MPH-ish and then a rocket engine to get to 1000+. That really is the right way to do it, as rocket dragsters on drag strips tend to steer badly due to slight takeoff jumps and pushes in a direction other than straight.
Darwin Award Winner... by Monkey-Man2000 · 2012-10-04 04:10 · Score: 1

...of the Decade in 5, 4, 3, 2...

--
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
1. Re:Darwin Award Winner... by compro01 · 2012-10-04 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  These guys have built the last 3 recordholding cars and drove them too. I am confidant they know what they're doing.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
2. Re:Darwin Award Winner... by Spad · 2012-10-04 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  And the "driver" is an RAF test pilot.
Horsepower? by Overzeetop · 2012-10-04 04:17 · Score: 1

Why would you classify a rocket engine in horsepower? Thrust is really what you're after, though even peak thrust is a bit of a useless measure. An overall or maximum total impulse would have been a nice touch. Bonus if they'd use a standard, like N-s, as their unit.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:Horsepower? by Relayman · 2012-10-04 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Horsepower lets us visualize 80,000 horses and the manure that they produce. Now, since each of the 80,000 horses is limited in speed, you still have to figure out how to put them in series to get the desired 1,000 mph (they can't pull but they could push), but, still, it's important to some to think of the problem in this way.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
2. Re:Horsepower? by magarity · 2012-10-04 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Horsepower lets us visualize 80,000 horses and the manure that they produce. Now, since each of the 80,000 horses is limited in speed, you still have to figure out how to put them in series to get the desired 1,000 mph (they can't pull but they could push), but, still, it's important to some to think of the problem in this way.
  They could be on a big treadmill that turns a drive train with a really high gear ratio.
3. Re:Horsepower? by TheRaven64 · 2012-10-04 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  You have solved the first part of the puzzle. The second part is working out how to fit them all into a car.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
4. Re:Horsepower? by Alien+Being · 2012-10-04 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's the standard unit of power for cars.
5. Re:Horsepower? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-04 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Duke Nukem had shrink rays...
6. Re:Horsepower? by jimshatt · 2012-10-04 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  Metric or imperial horses?
Re:Top Award by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-04 04:17 · Score: 1

I sense a Darwin Award...
...awarded five seconds after the Collier Trophy?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
You know what they say about when people assume... by kevkingofthesea · 2012-10-04 04:19 · Score: 1

...but if you assume constant acceleration over the 42 seconds to get to 1000 mph (~447m/s), it will take a distance of around 9.4km to reach top speed. That's a long drag strip.
Re:Rocket? by compro01 · 2012-10-04 04:20 · Score: 1

No. A wheel-driven car hasn't held the land speed record since 1965, when Blue Flame (a rocket car) beat Bluebird's record, though the most recent recordholders are jets rather than rockets.
Incidentally, the some of the same guys who made Blue Flame are the ones behind this vehicle.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Its not a car by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

A rocket with wheels is still just a rocket, doesn't matter where its aimed.
1. Re:Its not a car by White+Flame · 2012-10-04 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, came to post this. I'd say a requirement of a "car" is that it is propelled solely through torquing the wheels. This is effectively a (steerable?) rocket sled.
2. Re:Its not a car by Relayman · 2012-10-04 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, the requirement could be constant contact with the ground. Most objects will fly at 1,000 mph; I know the takeoff speed of my Corolla is around 120 mph.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
3. Re:Its not a car by SlippyToad · 2012-10-04 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's the kind of car a cartoon coyote, who is also a super-genius, might create.
  All in the name of catching that skinny bird.
  
  --
  One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
4. Re:Its not a car by mcgrew · 2012-10-04 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Your definition of "car" is meaningless and isn't anything like Webster's. You don't seem to realize that words are used for communication, and if you simply use your own meaning of a word everyone uses, you are obfuscating, not communicating.
  There's nothing in the definition of "car" that says what the method of propulsion is. This is indeed a car. Here's what a car is:
  Definition of CAR
  1: a vehicle moving on wheels: as
  a archaic : carriage, chariot
  b : a vehicle designed to move on rails (as of a railroad)
  c : automobile
  2: the passenger compartment of an elevator
  3: the part of an airship or balloon that carries the passengers and cargo
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
It gave ZERO horsepower by Brett+Buck · 2012-10-04 04:26 · Score: 2

Pedantic, but we are among geeks - a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done. The power is a product of the thrust and the speed times some constant to get it in the desired units. No speed = no power.
They claim to get 80,000 hp at 1000 mph - that's about 30,000 lbs of thrust, which is reasonably consistent with the claimed final thrust. They could have just said that.
Brett
1. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by timeOday · 2012-10-04 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  Pedantic, but we are among geeks - a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done.
  
  Well, it is accelerating its fuel and oxidizer to a great speed out the back. We seldom think of a rocket as a big gas cannon that just happens to have a lot of recoil, but it wouldn't be incorrect.
2. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by Cid+Highwind · 2012-10-04 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  a rocket engine gives *NO* horsepower in a static test, because there is no work being done.
  The exhaust gasses beg to differ!
  (or would, if they were sentient and capable of speech...)
  
  --
  0 1 - just my two bits
3. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-04 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Au contraire! They slightly accelerated/slowed* the rotation of the earth.
  * I don't know which way it was pointing, hopefully not north.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by insecuritiez · 2012-10-04 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is doing work. Work == energy (same units). Instead of making the rocket go forward it created sound, pushed air, increased temperature, etc. Exactly the same amount of work is done in a static test as is done in an actual launch.
5. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by GameboyRMH · 2012-10-04 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  Oooooh! Out-pedanted, GP!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
6. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by rawlink · 2012-10-04 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Lets get really pedantic here. Of course the rocket engine is generating horsepower. Horsepower is not work (which is force over distance). Horsepower is a measure of energy expended over a unit of time. Energy was expended (quite a bit actually) over a period of time (10 seconds). So yes, 30,000 horsepower is an accurate number even in a static test.
7. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by Brett+Buck · 2012-10-04 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Horsepower is a measure of the rate of work, NOT energy.
  Brett
8. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by strikethree · 2012-10-04 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I like your pedantic reply and the pedantic response (the Earth moved a little). There is one thing that does concern me a little when they actually can start measuring "true" horsepower:
  Top fuel dragsters have about 8k of available horsepower. It takes them less than 3 seconds to go a quarter of a mile. They experience massive accelerations...
  How long will it take them to apply 80k horsepower without killing the person inside the car?
  As a follow-on question: How far will they have traveled when the car is finally putting down the full 80k horsepower?
  Hm. Tertiary question that could be important: How far will they travel in their attempt to drop back down to a speed of zero?
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
9. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by viperidaenz · 2012-10-04 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  How is it possible a rocket engine can do anything else?
10. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-10-04 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  They are aware of this. See the footnote to the poster on this page.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
11. Re:It gave ZERO horsepower by White+Flame · 2012-10-04 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Quartary question: What sort of minuscule relativistic time differential will they experience during the run, compared to people at rest?
Google should partner to make it driverless by NinjaTekNeeks · 2012-10-04 04:27 · Score: 2

I'm all for cool science projects but at those speeds I think we can assume any accident will be fatal, especially if the fuel ignites. Why not partner with the google team to make it autonomous, it would be great press for google and would generate buzz for the project.
Not A Car by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative

When a vehicle's primary means of forward momentum is no longer via the transmission of energy to the ground through wheels but instead via high speed ejection of gasses through a jet exhaust, it should no longer be considered a car. It's a rocket sled.
1. Re:Not A Car by compro01 · 2012-10-04 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Federation Internationale de l'Automobile disagrees with you.
  Under your definition, no car has held the land speed record since 1965.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
2. Re:Not A Car by jareth-0205 · 2012-10-04 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  No reason why a car specifically has to be wheel-driven, but if you want to make that distinction then there is one for that too:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record
  Not as awesome, though.
What's the point? by rodrigoandrade · 2012-10-04 04:28 · Score: 1

I never saw the point of building Thrust SSC and its ilk.
Can the technology be transferred to street legal cars? No. Does it provide new insights into the science invlved, such as aerodynamics? No, since they use mostly existing rocket science (pun intended) to make it work. How does a project like this advances science?
Oh well, at least it's privately funded, so we can rest assured our tax money isn't being pissed in the wind.
1. Re:What's the point? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-10-04 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh well, at least it's privately funded, so we can rest assured our tax money isn't being pissed in the wind.
  Yes, fortunately it isn't solar or other green energy powered. If it was green you could kiss another $50 million of our tax dollars gone on it.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
2. Re:What's the point? by jamstar7 · 2012-10-04 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  A street-legal rocket car....
  
  California to New York in 2.5 hours. 3 hours trying to find a parking space.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
3. Re:What's the point? by jareth-0205 · 2012-10-04 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Does it provide new insights into the science invlved, such as aerodynamics?
  Actually, yes. It's extremely difficult to keep a car level with that much thrust, and not flying or burying itself. Also, before ThrustSSC nobody really knew what would happen with the sonic boom and how it would interact with the ground, reflect back onto the car, etc.
  Also... it's *awesome*! Do we stop doing cool stuff because there's no immediate benefit??
4. Re:What's the point? by Spad · 2012-10-04 05:59 · Score: 2
  
  Because it's fucking awesome and nobody has done it before.
  When did doing cool things out of curiosity become so derided?
5. Re:What's the point? by squiggleslash · 2012-10-05 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I have no objection whatsoever to 0.01% (or whatever $50 million is relative to total taxation) of my tax dollars being spent on making solar cars so powerful they can travel at 1,000mph.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
6. Re:What's the point? by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's called blue sky research.
Re:Rocket? by FunkyELF · 2012-10-04 04:28 · Score: 1

If a fighter jet touches its wheels to the ground, is it a car?
Re:Units by TCPhotography · 2012-10-04 04:33 · Score: 1

~7.75×10^10 (furlongs/(fortnight^2))
All things considered... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-10-04 04:33 · Score: 1

All things considered, I'd rather have a 1000mpg car than a 1000mph car.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1. Re:All things considered... by idontgno · 2012-10-04 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Here you go.
  You'll notice that in terms of utility, a 1000 MPG car is no less practical than a 1000 MPH car. No more practical, either. In fact, not at all practical.
  I take it that on further reflection, you don't want either?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Units by durrr · 2012-10-04 04:34 · Score: 1

They don't mention enough to calculate the acceleration.
In metric, a furlong per square fortnight is: 1.375*10^-10 m/s^2 so I guess the value we're looking at would be several gigafurlongs per square fortnight at least though.
Richard Hammond by Pax681 · 2012-10-04 04:38 · Score: 1, Redundant

keep the FUCK AWAY FROM IT!!! that is all :P
1. Re:Richard Hammond by CaptSlaq · 2012-10-05 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  ^ ++
  For those who don't get the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hammond#Vampire_dragster_crash
Is it just me... by Grundibular · 2012-10-04 04:38 · Score: 2

...or do all these land speed records seem to boil down to just how fast you can scrape a de-winged jet aircraft along the ground?

--
"Dance like nobody's watching" ... "Poo like nobody's watching"
1. Re:Is it just me... by berashith · 2012-10-04 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  your definition is correct, but I imagine that it isn't quite as easy as you make it sound.
The "not built here" lobby by fiannaFailMan · 2012-10-04 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've got plenty of karma so I'm just going to say it.
I've just been scrolling through the "what's the point" posts and all I can say is get the fuck over yourselves. If this thing were built in America you'd be calling it the greatest thing since the outside toilet. Same as how you pissed on Concorde, one of the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century, after you didn't get your act together with your own SST projects. Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."
But you know what? The Brits have made the land speed record their thing. I say good on them and I have to ask what ground-breaking records have you broken from the comfort of your mother's basement lately?
Lighten up, you depressing fucks!

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
1. Re:The "not built here" lobby by DRJlaw · 2012-10-04 05:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I've just been scrolling through the "what's the point" posts and all I can say is get the fuck over yourselves. If this thing were built in America you'd be calling it the greatest thing since the outside toilet. Same as how you pissed on Concorde, one of the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century, after you didn't get your act together with your own SST projects. Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."
  Actually, I wouldn't. Rocket and jet engines capable of powering objects to 1,000 mph are commonplace and a routine aerospace product.
  Jet planes and rocket planes capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds are unusual and more specialized, but still not a breakthrough.
  A car design which which is capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds other than as a jet plane or rocket plane, i.e., without becoming airborne, and by actually supporting at least its own weight on the ground surface (I certainly won't exclude downforce-utilizing designs), would be the greatest thing since the outside toilet from a technological perspective. That's neither been tested nor proven here. So piss off yourself.
2. Re:The "not built here" lobby by Algae_94 · 2012-10-04 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."
  This isn't a defense mechanism to explain bad performance. Americans really don't give a shit about soccer. Games are not shown on TV unless you are watching a Spanish language channel, OR it's either the World cup or Olympics. I hear there's an American soccer league, but it's small potatoes. Any trash talk by other countries about soccer falls on deaf ears.
3. Re:The "not built here" lobby by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-10-04 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly, you're worse than the Americans about taking an unrelated subject and injecting bafflingly out-of-context nationalism. Concorde? That was 50 years ago, dude. And I assure you that the American indifference towards soccer is genuine. (Shouldn't you be lecturing us about how it's actually called "football" and our sport should be called "[insert insulting name here]"? I thought that was standard procedure.)
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
4. Re:The "not built here" lobby by doesnothingwell · 2012-10-04 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think most of us on Slashdot have strapped a model rocket engine to a model car. Mostly we learned its good for a laugh.
  
  --
  They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
5. Re:The "not built here" lobby by aliquis · 2012-10-04 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  So piss off yourself.
  That was yesterdays thread.
6. Re:The "not built here" lobby by DRJlaw · 2012-10-04 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  FYI, to the moderator deeming my response flamebait:
  Considering the GP was even more inflammatory and off topic in the quoted text, aren't your standards just a wee bit inconsistent?
7. Re:The "not built here" lobby by fiannaFailMan · 2012-10-08 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Concorde? That was 50 years ago, dude
  50 years ago?!
  Er, Concorde was only retired about five years ago. It went into service in 1976 which is 35 years ago. 50 years ago people were flying in Boeing 707s and piston-engined DC7s, not Concorde. Do try to keep up.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
8. Re:The "not built here" lobby by fiannaFailMan · 2012-10-08 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Play me the world's smallest violin.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
9. Re:The "not built here" lobby by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-10-08 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  The supersonic transport design dates from the early 1960s. The only reason it was delayed until 1976 was squabbling and lack of money. Do try to keep up.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
10. Re:The "not built here" lobby by fiannaFailMan · 2012-10-09 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, so now the date of inception is considered the birthday and not the date when it entered service? In that case we can say that helicopters have been around since the time of Leonardo DaVinci.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by BetaDays · 2012-10-04 04:50 · Score: 1

I thought people across the pond use kph not mph when dealing with speed. If not then let me know what I'm missing. All I learn of that part of the world is from Doctor Who shows so sorry if I'm a bit confused. Although I do like the fish and chips not fish sticks and pudding.

--
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
1. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 05:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The UK uses pretty much every unit going:
  miles/hour for speed (of cars) but m/s for most other speeds
  miles for car based distance - but metres and cm for most other measurements (car/lorry heights are usually in feet)
  feet and inches for peoples' heights (and penises)
  stone for peoples weight, but kg for almost all foodstuffs, if you go fishing they generally still use ounce and pounds
  litres for most things, except milk and beer - then its pints
  fuel efficiency is usually in miles per gallon - but petrol is sold by the litre
  There's a bunch of others but we use a messed up amalgamation of imperial and metric.
2. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by multipartmixed · 2012-10-04 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard British motor ways still had speeds posted in mph. Don't ask me why.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
3. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, these people call themselves scientists.
  So - let's publish articles in elbows and stadiums.
  For me pound of force = nonsense. Pound is a measure of mass.
4. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by Spad · 2012-10-04 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  Because we like to confuse visitors by using a random mixture of Imperial and Metric measurements where ever possible.
5. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by itsdapead · 2012-10-04 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Last I heard British motor ways still had speeds posted in mph. Don't ask me why.
  Because although anybody doing anything important in the UK uses metric units, and a whole generation of us educated in the 70s were never even taught Imperial units (fucked if I know or care how many feet there are in a mile), the Government lost it's bottle and gave in to a bunch of market-stall holders and right-wing tabloid campaigns before consigning Imperial units to the deep, dark hole in which they belong.
  At one stage, the standard size for wooden boards was 6'x4'x25mm... Sad.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
6. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by rjforster · 2012-10-04 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Even better are car tyre measurements which are in metric (width and profile) and imperial (diameter) at the same time!
7. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by T+Murphy · 2012-10-04 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not that this is a competition or anything, but the EPA standards for emissions use grams NOx per horsepower hour. Not sure what other countries use.
  
  --
  My webcomic
8. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by richard.cs · 2012-10-04 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Pounds are a measure of force. The mass unit you are looking for is the slug.
  It's not so bad until people start using pounds force and pounds mass interchangeably and cancelling quantities against each other that are not dimensionally equivalent
9. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by enos · 2012-10-04 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Even better are car tyre measurements which are in metric (width and profile) and imperial (diameter) at the same time!
  Even fully metric countries where few people know how big an inch is still have some things measured in inches:
  - rim diameters
  - socket drive. I.e. you can take your 3/8" drive sockets and they'll fit a European ratchet.
  - screen size
  These are things where the measure itself is largely irrelevant for practical use and serves only as a size differential. The numbers can be arbitrary as long as they're consistent, sort of like clothing size.
  
  --
  boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
10. Re:Shouldn't the title actually say 1609kph? by Inda · 2012-10-04 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  You have to push the old fuckers into giving up their units.
  
  "what's a pound in English?" I ask, knowning full well they don't know the answer. It's 0.45kg, by the way.
  
  "c'mon, I'm nearly 40 years old and we were never taught feet and inches". Which is not quite true, as we spent a whole hour doing imperial when I was 7.
  
  "how many fluid ouces in a pint?" I'll ask, when people younger than me are using old school measurements. Most don't know.
  
  "Don't alienate my daughter with your silly units" rams it home.
  
  And finally,
  
  "So how many hogheads per fornight does your horse and carriage get?" seems to get me that look I always enjoy getting.
  
  I can forgive my mother using imperial. She knows no better. Everyone else is just lazy and they don't even know their own measurements, which winds me up.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Yes but how fast will it go around our track? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 04:58 · Score: 1

For that we hand it over to our tame racing driver.
Some say that He toasts hot dogs backwards, and that given half a chance he too would put a ten thousand horsepower engine into a lawnmower.
All we know is, he's called the Stig.
How fast does it stop? by WaffleMonster · 2012-10-04 05:07 · Score: 1

All this talk about "breaking" the speed barrier and how fast this car goes with not one sentance devoted anywhere to how this thing stops reminds me of an earlier darwin award involving JATOs.
At 1050 MPH if course is perfectly flat at same alt you have between 6 to 15 seconds depending on height of obstruction to change course after any object can even be detected by any sort of optics over the horizon.
1. Re:How fast does it stop? by Spad · 2012-10-04 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Changing course enough to avoid any sizeable object would probably be fatal in that thing; there's a reason they've had people clear all the rocks & pebbles from the proposed test site so they don't have to worry about it.
  It stops mostly by use of a parachute.
Re:Units by cyberchondriac · 2012-10-04 05:29 · Score: 1

Don't forget to factor in stone per rood and quid cubed.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Power = Force x Velocity by swm · 2012-10-04 05:52 · Score: 1

Google tells us that
((30 000 horsepower) / (27 500 pounds force)) * (10 seconds) = 1.8 kilometers
Unless that's a BIG aircraft shelter, they probably didn't get 30K HP out of the engine.
My guess is they bolted it to a static test stand, where it generated exactly 0 HP.
Compare
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
1. Re:Power = Force x Velocity by Ogive17 · 2012-10-04 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, they literally had 30,000 horses lined up to push against the engine to keep it from moving.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:You know what they say about when people assume by Tyler+Eaves · 2012-10-04 05:53 · Score: 1

Yea sounds about right.
Standard course at Bonneville for high speed runs is something like 6 miles to accelerate, 1 mile for the timed portion (the speed quoted for the record is the AVERAGE speed over this mile), and then several miles to stop.

--
TODO: Something witty here...
Oh, my God! by macbeth66 · 2012-10-04 06:22 · Score: 1

It uses coffee!
Won't that cause blindness in the driver?
Re:Rocket? by nojayuk · 2012-10-04 06:25 · Score: 1

Andy Green, ex-RAF pilot and the holder of the supersonic land speed record as driver of Thrust SSC is the chosen driver for the 1000mph Bloodhound. He also holds the world land speed record for a diesel-powered wheel-driven car, the JCB Dieselmax which took the record to 350mph at Bonneville in 2006.
Define "Car" by DarthVain · 2012-10-04 06:27 · Score: 1

Sounds more like a horizontal rocket to me.
The engine isn't the problem. by Animats · 2012-10-04 06:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

The engine isn't the problem. There are many aircraft engines powerful enough. The problem is keeping the "car" stably in contact with the ground. Really, anything going that fast is an aircraft. The aerodynamic forces dominate.
Finding a long enough flat area to run the thing is getting hard. The Bonneville Salt Flats aren't big enough any more. The last few land speed record efforts moved to Black Rock Desert, and this one is planned for the Hakskeen Pan dry lake bed in South Africa.
Rails work better than salt flats. Holloman USAF Base has a 10-mile high speed test rail track for rocket sled tests. The speed record there is 6,481 MPH.
1. Re:The engine isn't the problem. by nomel · 2012-10-04 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  >The problem is keeping the "car" stably in contact with the ground.
  If the thrust is around 30,000 lbs, and you point only 1% of that the wrong way, you have to come up with 300lb of force to keep the car going straight, on a dirt road...better be quick, because you're going 1000mph!
  Crazy!
  I would love to see the track marks after the run. I'm guessing there's all sorts of sliding around.
  I wonder what percent of power goes to downforce.
2. Re:The engine isn't the problem. by Animats · 2012-10-04 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what percent of power goes to downforce.
  A lot. Formula 1 cars have rather high drag, and generate enough downforce that they could be driven upside down. Formula 1 cars need it for cornering. Land speed record cars need it to avoid becoming airborne at the slightest bump or crosswind.
3. Re:The engine isn't the problem. by Dusty101 · 2012-10-05 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to see the track marks after the run. I'm guessing there's all sorts of sliding around.
  I saw some pictures of the cross-sectional profiles of the wheel tracks from the Thrust SSC test runs years ago, & they actually change and get more complex as the speed increases. But, yes: such vehicles do churn up the track pretty seriously. I seem to recall that for these speed tests, they have to do a pair of runs in opposite directions within the same hour (to compensate for wind effects), so they usually just do them next to each other, to avoid the furrows from the first run messing up the second.
1000 mpg engine? cool! by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-04 07:47 · Score: 1

Wow, a 1000 mpg engine? Cool!
Oh, wait, you mean more horsepower.
Here's a news flash, guys, if it can't get 100 mpg nobody's going to buy it.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:1000 mpg engine? cool! by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Reality disagrees. Name one thing that gets 100mpg that sells? I doubt you could sell a scooter that underpowered.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:1000 mpg engine? cool! by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-04 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  They sell $15,000 cars that get 60 mpg in Canada right now. today. Ads on TV for them.
  Selling like hotcakes.
  Wake up and smell the future.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
3. Re:1000 mpg engine? cool! by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Rated at 60mpg is a far thing from actually getting 100mpg. Which the GP claimed would be a minimum. Hell my Honda 600n got about 55 and that was sold in 1972. That car improved my driving, you had to F1 every corner and run every gear just to keep up with traffic. Unsafe as hell but funner then anybody who has never owned a really really really underpowered car can understand. It was the idiots staring at my car, trying to guess what it was and forgetting to drive around it that made me give that car up. I should get another for autocross.
  I don't think there is a moped or scooter that _gets_ 100mpg. Perhaps a bicycle with a helper engine. But that could get infinity mpg so it's an obvious edge case.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4. Re:1000 mpg engine? cool! by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-04 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  And you would be wrong. Just pop into a Ducati shop and buy a 100 mpg one over on Westlake, or the UW shop by the Ship Canal and get one with similar mpg.
  Look, I don't mind you saying you want horsepower, but let's not try pretending such things exist. When you can BUY them right now.
  Just look on this week's UW daily news and you'll see some of the cars rolled out here as remodels with more than 100 mpg. Just because you think it's hard, or used to be hard, doesn't mean it is hard, today.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Rocket? by Alien+Being · 2012-10-04 07:47 · Score: 1

It was Craig Breedlove's Spirit of America in 1963 if you count 3-wheel vehicles. Otherwise, it was Breedlove's second Spirit of America (Sonic 1) in 1965. Blue Flame was later.
Re:Rocket? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-04 08:12 · Score: 1

When you put wheels on a cruise missile and replace the warhead with a cockpit, it becomes a car.
Re:Hopes of breaking record dashed when... by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 09:02 · Score: 1

Quit trying to be funny. You aren't. You are just stupid.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Rocket? by compro01 · 2012-10-04 09:11 · Score: 1

Yeah, I got my dates crossed. Blue Flame set the record in 1970.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Rocket Engine? Car? by Chas · 2012-10-04 12:12 · Score: 1

If it has a rocket engine it's not a car. It's a ballistic device with a (hopefully) flat trajectory and just happens to have wheels.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
yea, SCIENCE, that's what I'm talkin bout! by swell · 2012-10-04 15:21 · Score: 1

As professor Irwin Corey, world's foremost authority, might have said; "Scientists know best- never trust science to engineers and mechanics."
And so we have Scientists designing rocket cars. Why? Well apparently they majored in Rocket Science, a course offered only at the prestigious Brighton School of Rocket Science and Hard Knocks.
To add even more prestige to the stunning development of this unique rocket car, respected Science publisher iScienceTimes has consented to publish an abstract of the work to date. You will recall some of their recent work:
Ancient Statue Discovered By Nazis Is From Outer Space, and;
Looking At Cute Animal Pictures Good For Productivity ...
So, let's hear it for SCIENCE! Ain't it the best, folks!

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
Re:Rocket? by tehcyder · 2012-10-05 03:08 · Score: 1

He also holds the world land speed record for a diesel-powered wheel-driven car, the JCB Dieselmax which took the record to 350mph at Bonneville in 2006.
It must be different in the US, but here in the UK "JCB" is pretty much the standard shorthand for what you call a back hoe. So this presents a somewhat humourous image to a British mind.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Rocket? by nojayuk · 2012-10-05 04:09 · Score: 1

The Dieselmax and its record campaign was paid for by JCB, based around their new (at the time) JCB 444 diesel engine they had designed for back actuators, front-loaders etc. They were heavily tweaked of course with the two engines in the car eventually producing about 1500hp in total for the record runs.
Interestingly the diesel-powered car record was one of the longer-standing entries in the FIA record books with the previous holder's record being set in 1973 at a bit over 230mph.