A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rocket Racing League



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 4th 05, 12:58 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rocket Racing League

Was reading this latest announcement:

http://www.rocketracingleague.com


So when they say "rocket racing," I'm assuming that they mean a vehicle
with onboard oxidizer and fuel propellant, as opposed to air-breathing
jet aircraft.
I guess that stipulation would be useful, as far as focusing impetus on
propulsion systems useful for spaceflight.

But they seem to be pitching the Long-EZ as the stock model for this
competition. Isn't that a bit confining in regards to harnessing
competition to stimulate useful design innovations? I realize that
there aren't a whole lot of designs on hand to choose from when
starting a brand new competition like this, but will they allow people
to branch out from this design, or will the specifications be very
tight?

Other than providing a festive sporting event, is the goal of this
competition to stimulate newer and better types of rocket aircraft, or
rather purely to hone the skills of competing pilots using a single
common rocket platform?

Even in NASCAR, IndyCar, FormulaOne, they allow for a certain amount of
customization of the vehicle, so that the competing drivers can obtain
an edge on the vehicle side, rather than relying purely on driving
skills alone.

Also, I notice that the rocket-powered LongEZ has that alcohol fueltank
slung low on the underside of the craft. I assume that's for safety in
keeping the tank away from the fuselage, but isn't that thing hung too
low near the ground? If you were to have a hard landing at the end of
the race, causing the landing gear to buckle, wouldn't that tank
possibly end up scraping the ground, possibly even igniting the fuel?

I dunno, just my opinion, but either they need to lengthen that landing
gear, or else bring the tank a little closer to the fuselage.

Comments?

  #2  
Old October 6th 05, 07:20 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree with your comments. It can not really help with inovation using
a stock plane. Apparently a new model is in development for use after
the Long-Ez , but I feel it would be best to have an open competition
to stimulate research and development of new ideas, engines etc.
Maybe it is there plan after the concept of the competion has been
proven to create an Unlimited Rocket class.
wrote:
Was reading this latest announcement:

http://www.rocketracingleague.com


So when they say "rocket racing," I'm assuming that they mean a vehicle
with onboard oxidizer and fuel propellant, as opposed to air-breathing
jet aircraft.
I guess that stipulation would be useful, as far as focusing impetus on
propulsion systems useful for spaceflight.

But they seem to be pitching the Long-EZ as the stock model for this
competition. Isn't that a bit confining in regards to harnessing
competition to stimulate useful design innovations? I realize that
there aren't a whole lot of designs on hand to choose from when
starting a brand new competition like this, but will they allow people
to branch out from this design, or will the specifications be very
tight?

Other than providing a festive sporting event, is the goal of this
competition to stimulate newer and better types of rocket aircraft, or
rather purely to hone the skills of competing pilots using a single
common rocket platform?

Even in NASCAR, IndyCar, FormulaOne, they allow for a certain amount of
customization of the vehicle, so that the competing drivers can obtain
an edge on the vehicle side, rather than relying purely on driving
skills alone.

Also, I notice that the rocket-powered LongEZ has that alcohol fueltank
slung low on the underside of the craft. I assume that's for safety in
keeping the tank away from the fuselage, but isn't that thing hung too
low near the ground? If you were to have a hard landing at the end of
the race, causing the landing gear to buckle, wouldn't that tank
possibly end up scraping the ground, possibly even igniting the fuel?

I dunno, just my opinion, but either they need to lengthen that landing
gear, or else bring the tank a little closer to the fuselage.

Comments?


  #5  
Old October 7th 05, 12:49 AM
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bruce Hoult wrote:
If they are going to fly races requireing refuelling several times then
that might well push fast-turnaround technology. If you can fly for 15
minutes on a tankful, and everyone takes 15 minutes to refuel, then the
team that figures out how to refuel in 10 minutes will win.


I think a team that figures out how to make a tankful of fuel last for
15 minutes is going to win, even if it takes twenty minutes to refuel.
  #7  
Old October 7th 05, 06:43 AM
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Joann Evans wrote:

I'm not sure, but I seem to remember reading somewhere in the last
year or so, of someone re-making (though not with the same rocket engine
design) the Me-163 Komet....


That was one of the ideas XCOR floated -- along with a Bell X-1 replica
-- at the time that they had built rocket engines but didn't have
anything to demonstrate them on. When no customers appeared wanting an
X-1 or Me-163 replica they put their engines onto the chief engineer's
personal Long-Ez as a demonstration aircraft.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
  #8  
Old October 7th 05, 07:17 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bruce Hoult wrote:




I'm not sure, but I seem to remember reading somewhere in the last
year or so, of someone re-making (though not with the same rocket engine
design) the Me-163 Komet....



That was one of the ideas XCOR floated -- along with a Bell X-1 replica
-- at the time that they had built rocket engines but didn't have
anything to demonstrate them on.



"Fly your own Me-163 Komet!" No, if I were trying to convince people my
product was safe, that wouldn't be the plane I'd choose to
rebuild...still, could be worse: "Fly your own Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka
Kamikaze! It's "Baka" to the future with XCOR's newest fly'n fliver!
Comes with free tanto knife, headband, and bottle of saki...you'll be
the hit of Fleet Week when you buzz an American carrier in your sleek
gray beauty. (Note: Recommended for experienced pilots only, as it has
no landing gear)" ;-)
  #10  
Old October 7th 05, 03:17 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Andrew Gray wrote:

Someone was certainly building half-a-dozen Me-262 replicas a couple of
years back. (IIRC, a major problem was fitting in the engines - the
cowlings were far too big for them!)



http://www.stormbirds.com/project/general/updates.htm

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets Andrew Nowicki Policy 28 February 10th 05 01:55 AM
Scrapping Scram sanman Policy 28 November 7th 04 07:24 PM
ASTRONOMICAL LEAGUE PRESS RELEASE 2004-2 EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 14th 04 08:52 PM
Benefits of Membership in the Astronomical League EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 9 February 4th 04 10:02 PM
NEWS: Redstone rocket turns golden today - Huntsville Times Rusty B History 0 August 20th 03 10:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.