Engineering News

Rumour has it that the proponents are insane, and have unmarried parents.

Andy Green (who signed up to drive the Bloodhound) didn't seem any more insane than the rest of us when we met him at Bonneville the year they ran the JB diesel. But then everything is relative. There are many questions extant about the mental stability of land speed racers in general. Of course it's contagious; sort of the mad cow disease variant of automotive competition.

Ed Weldon

Re: "There are many questions extant about the mental stability of land speed racers in general." get-a-life buddy they are discovering tough anserz 2 tough qweschunz whut-L bennefit us all in the long run.

I used to know some of the Noble family - seemed a pretty sane bunch to me.

This is what happens when science doesn't follow through on its promise of flying cars.

So, for the higher speeds (Above Mach 1) they won't be using something like a Linear Aero Spike, or are they still too deep in dream land for those engines?

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/SR-71-LASRE/index.html

Is it just me or does the order of engine usage seem to be backwards? How does a V12 ICE provide additional force to propel a land vehicle at 1600 km/h? Why use a rocket at low speeds to now use a jet engine while going transonic? I realize the V12 could (as the animation implied) first get the vehicle first moving and additionally power the hydraulics and fuel pumps so that the jet engine's power goes only to thrust. But it makes more sense to my feeble brain to first use the V12, then the easily throttled jet engine while disengaging the wheels from the V12, followed by the all or nothing rocket. Wait a minute, I'm assuming the rocket is a solid propellant. If the rocket is a liquid propellant rocket, it could then be throttled too? But the order still seems wrong to me.

Sorry, dude, the V12 is not for propulsion, it's the fuel pump to feed those other fuel guzzlers.

never mind. I should visit my lab more often.

he he heeeeeeeeee... course I dunno the details of those engine operation, but the previous mentioned idea of a solid propellant rocket to boost speed beyond the eurofighter engine limit. No... I have just read the article: this is a controllable trust solid fuel rocket developed from scratch! Cool...

Controllable thrust solid fuel, yeah that is cool. Now that I've reread the article, I see that I completely missed that point about controling the hydrogen peroxide flow for the rocket. Since the fuel is still a solid, I guess the term solid rocket fuel is still accurate. I'm sure it's not what comes to most peoples minds first when yo say solid fuel rocket. If NASA had only used this concept for the shuttle boosters...

...wonder if it will be a KIA?