Rocket cars

[PB666]

Mars, no Venus, no-no Mars, No its has to be Venus. Has your space fantasy become perplexed with difficult decisions?

Why leave Earth when you can put you space age rocket technology to work on the ground?

Imagine sailng down the bypass at 1600 kilometers per, waving at passed aircraft, limited to a piddly 400 km/h below 3000 meters. If you can imagine this, this is your ride, .........just remember to order nine years in advance.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34341017

Edited July 5, 2016 by PB666

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Mars, no Venus, no-no Mars, No its has to be Venus. Has your space fantasy become perplexed with difficult decisions?

Why leave Earth when you can put you space age rocket technology to work on the ground?

Imagine sailng down the bypass at 1600 kilometers per, waving at passed aircraft, limited to a piddly 400 km/h below 3000 meters. If you can imagine this, this is your ride, .........just remember to order nine years in advance.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34341017

You're making it sound like they're trying to develop a rocket-powered luxury vehicle for the super-rich, which is completely inaccurate. This is an attempt to break the land-speed record, and their options are basically limited to jets or rockets.

You really shouldn't put such a negative spin on tech articles unless a company is touting some obviously impractical vaporware designed by business majors (like that ridiculous aircraft concept a few months ago with sixteen ducted fans).

[Slam_Jones]

Hm, yeah, a land speed record car is a far cry from a luxury-commuter car. Even if such surface speeds were sustainable and efficient in the near(to not-so-near) future, we would need major infrastructure changes just to make it possible to drive on. For a car (not even a commuter car; more like a prototype hyper-car) to be capable of achieving those speeds, you'll have to wait probably 20 - 30 years. And even then, you'd probably never find a piece of road you could get it fully up to speed on (legally, or otherwise...). It'd be like taking a Formula 1 car on a horse trail... it's just not built for it. And you'll be moving several orders of magnitude faster than anything nearby. Very unsafe, to say the least.

Not to mention it'd never pass smog, or safety inspections, and you could expect to get pulled over 100% of times you take it out. That's whether or not they even let you keep the rocket engine on it.

As a land speed record car, though, it looks great. Always interesting to see where our current tech maxes out in regards to surface speed.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[PB666]

You're making it sound like they're trying to develop a rocket-powered luxury vehicle for the super-rich, which is completely inaccurate. This is an attempt to break the land-speed record, and their options are basically limited to jets or rockets.

You really shouldn't put such a negative spin on tech articles unless a company is touting some obviously impractical vaporware designed by business majors (like that ridiculous aircraft concept a few months ago with sixteen ducted fans).

I doubt even Rolls could pass off a 1600 km/h ride on the bypass as luxurious.

Hmmm practical, no I can't see practical here, not when the sound barrier is a few hundred m/s.

As far as vaporware is concerned we have been seeing the technology reports coming out now for about 7 years on the beeb, so yeah there is something vapory about it.

Search Bloodhound on the beeb, there are something like 50 articles in the archive already.

So it would seem you are wrong on both accounts, the only thing you are right about it is not a luxury car, but neither is a porshe 911.

Edited September 26, 2015 by PB666

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Hm, yeah, a land speed record car is a far cry from a luxury-commuter car. Even if such surface speeds were sustainable and efficient in the near(to not-so-near) future, we would need major infrastructure changes just to make it possible to drive on. For a car (not even a commuter car; more like a prototype hyper-car) to be capable of achieving those speeds, you'll have to wait probably 20 - 30 years. And even then, you'd probably never find a piece of road you could get it fully up to speed on (legally, or otherwise...). It'd be like taking a Formula 1 car on a horse trail... it's just not built for it. And you'll be moving several orders of magnitude faster than anything nearby. Very unsafe, to say the least.

Is there ANY jurisdiction where jet or rocket engines are street legal? I think a few people have built pulsejet vehicles, but they're generally either something small like a shopping cart or they only actually run the jets at a track. The noise generated by running a jet engine on a public road might well incapacitate other drivers.

But yeah, think about how road-worthy a top fuel dragster is. This vehicle is less useful in every way.

Hmmm practical, no I can't see practical here, not when the sound barrier is a few hundred m/s.

I should qualify that: I mean impractical for the application the articles say it's meant for. A rocket-powered vehicle is definitely practical for breaking the land-speed record, which is this vehicle's only intended application.

On the other hand, this: http://www.gizmag.com/vv-plane-vtol-cargo-ducted-fans/33296/

is an impractical concept. It has four clusters of EDF units (inherently less efficient than larger propellers), the rendering has ridiculous spindly engine mounts which couldn't withstand the weight of the engines, let alone 30+ tonnes of thrust, and the company makes an implausible claim that it would be cost-competitive with trucks when they don't even have a working small-scale prototype to base things on.

There is a difference between "bogged down in development" and "nonexistent product which anyone with a basic grasp of physics, let alone an engineer, can tell you won't work as promised."

[PB666]

Is there ANY jurisdiction where jet or rocket engines are street legal? I think a few people have built pulsejet vehicles, but they're generally either something small like a shopping cart or they only actually run the jets at a track. The noise generated by running a jet engine on a public road might well incapacitate other drivers.

But yeah, think about how road-worthy a top fuel dragster is. This vehicle is less useful in every way.

I should qualify that: I mean impractical for the application the articles say it's meant for. A rocket-powered vehicle is definitely practical for breaking the land-speed record, which is this vehicle's only intended application.

On the other hand, this: http://www.gizmag.com/vv-plane-vtol-cargo-ducted-fans/33296/

is an impractical concept. It has four clusters of EDF units (inherently less efficient than larger propellers), the rendering has ridiculous spindly engine mounts which couldn't withstand the weight of the engines, let alone 30+ tonnes of thrust, and the company makes an implausible claim that it would be cost-competitive with trucks when they don't even have a working small-scale prototype to base things on.

There is a difference between "bogged down in development" and "nonexistent product which anyone with a basic grasp of physics, let alone an engineer, can tell you won't work as promised."

Uh my generation invented vapor ware, as in why OS2 didn't take off years after IBM announced it would be out, yes it was bogged down, but for which the media called it vapor ware. Any time the press hype is years in front of the release date, its vapor ware.

[PB666]

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832669[/url]

Clear the M6, looks like they are getting ready to roll!

[fredinno]

[quote name='pb666'][url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832669[/url]

clear the m6, looks like they are getting ready to roll![/quote]
ahhh!! What the .... Is that??

[wumpus]

[quote name='Armchair Rocket Scientist']Is there ANY jurisdiction where jet or rocket engines are street legal? I think a few people have built pulsejet vehicles, but they're generally either something small like a shopping cart or they only actually run the jets at a track. The noise generated by running a jet engine on a public road might well incapacitate other drivers.

But yeah, think about how road-worthy a top fuel dragster is. This vehicle is less useful in every way.

I should qualify that: I mean impractical for the application the articles say it's meant for. A rocket-powered vehicle is definitely practical for breaking the land-speed record, which is this vehicle's only intended application.

On the other hand, this: [URL]http://www.gizmag.com/vv-plane-vtol-cargo-ducted-fans/33296/[/URL]
is an impractical concept. It has four clusters of EDF units (inherently less efficient than larger propellers), the rendering has ridiculous spindly engine mounts which couldn't withstand the weight of the engines, let alone 30+ tonnes of thrust, and the company makes an implausible claim that it would be cost-competitive with trucks when they don't even have a working small-scale prototype to base things on.

There is a difference between "bogged down in development" and "nonexistent product which anyone with a basic grasp of physics, let alone an engineer, can tell you won't work as promised."[/QUOTE]

Odd that you should bring up top fuel dragsters. My understanding is that most jet and rocket propelled "cars" function as drag racers and typically exhibition as such, often as part of the show of top fuel racing.
Richard Hammond's (of Top Gear fame) near-death crash was in a jet powered drag racer. They might be too rare and too fast for standard drag racing, but that is more or less what they do.

My guess is that all easily available jets are built for subsonic travel (F-4 jets are typically beyond your shady arms dealers) and it is easier to develop a faster rocket than a jet (a big reason why you don't see jets in lower stages of "rockets". A one-off rocket is hugely cheaper [relatively only] to design/build).

[PB666]

[quote name='fredinno']ahhh!! What the .... Is that??[/QUOTE]


A modified Jaguar, the m6 is where you drive modified british cars, ;^). Edited November 17, 2015 by PB666

[StrandedonEarth]

The thing with land speed records is that it is really just a controlled flight that forces it to stay on the ground. Hit a small bump that lets the airflow get under the nose and it's airborne, if it doesn't flip right over backwards, unless it has an obscene amount of downforce. The major challenge is building wheels that won't fly apart from centrifugal force. That's why the wheels on that car are over 200lbs apiece Edited November 17, 2015 by StrandedonEarth

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36676063