Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

X Prize Founder Launches Rocket Racing League

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Oct 03, 2005 01:11 PM
from the crop-dusting-pilots-unite dept.
Space Technology
David Rosen writes "MSNBC reports a 'Rocket Racing League' is launching today. The man behind the $10 million X Prize for private spaceflight is joining forces with a venture capitalist who is also an Indy car backer to establish a NASCAR-like racing league for rocket-powered aircraft." The Rocket Racing League also has an official website which outlines some of the specifics behind the program.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Rocket Racing League Ready To Launch 79 comments
capnkr sends us to Wired for the story of the long-delayed Rocket Racing League, which we discussed when it launched in 2005. It seems the league is finally ready to get off the ground. At a press conference at the Yale Club in New York, RRL CEO Granger Whitelaw said rocket-powered planes will fly their first exhibition race in August at the EAA AirVenture air show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with at least three more races to follow in 2008. "The Rocket Racing League on Monday detailed plans to move from a sci-fi fantasy to a full-fledged commercial enterprise — including 'vertical drag races' using rockets."
[+] Rockets To Race Over Wisconsin Skies 210 comments
Iron Condor writes with a reminder that that the first race of the Rocket Racing League (last mentioned here in April, after its 2005 founding) is set to take place later this month at Oshkosh AirVenture 08. This race, says Iron Condor, "is exactly what it sounds like: NASCAR 1000m above ground in rocket-propelled airplanes. Created by X-prize founder/CEO Peter Diamandis, this is 'the next evolution of racing' (at least according to the promo video, which is definitely worth watching)..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

X Prize Founder Launches Rocket Racing League 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Non-chemical rockets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by biryokumaru (822262) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Monday October 03 2005, @01:15PM (#13706100) Journal
    I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.
    • What we really need is a new form of energy and/or propulsion, period. With the way fossil-fuels are going, we need something akin to an X-prize for a vehicle than can match today's cars, but with a method of power that is long-term available/renewable. I'm sure there are lots of eggheads out there that might be able to come up with something amazing and wonderful, for the right incentive. It's hard enough getting by nowadays, but if there were the incentive of a massive cash prize based on various criteria
      • The problem is the attempt to match today's cars. Lets face it, from a good-for-the-earth standpoint there's nothing worse than a sports car. Okay, it goes 0-60 in so many seconds, but that's never needed if the driver is compotent and not running for their life.

        Either GM or Ford, I forget which, is making minivans in China that get 60 miles per gallon. 60! They're not hybrids. Their 0-60 is pathetic, but who cares? 60 mpg in a VAN. This is "good enough" for most people, but there's social pressure t
        • Honda [honda.com] makes a diesel that'll do 130 MPH, and get 92 MPG (not at the same time, mind you, but in the exact same vehicle though). It's not an overly-expensive interior-space-lacking hybrid, just a regular diesel, with an Accord body (looks like a normal car, not stupid-futuristic like a lot of "concepts" are). At the end of the quarter mile, the car is doing a dreadfully slow 54.198 MPH though. Acceleration isn't everything, but being able to get the hell out of the way of oncoming traffic and merge with a fa
          • Not "overly expensive"? Lets see... a quick search shows an unequipped accord ctdi sport costing over $30,000. Hybrids aren't even that expensive; not all hybrids are small, either - the Ford Escape Hybrid, Mercury Mariner Hybrid, the Lexus RX400h, the Toyota Highlander, and - you guessed it - the Honda Accord Hybrid (only 3k more than the EV6 V6 Accord, and gets the same milage as a V4 Civic), just to list larger ones currently on the market. In fact, I'd say that they average about the size of the acc
        • These things [zapworld.com] are not "Minivans". (At least, not as they're defined in the US.) They're "mini-vehicles", period. And yes, they're on sale in the US. No, I seriously doubt they'll catch on.

          Not sure where you got the Ford or GM connection.
    • I could seriously see a ramjet powered craft doing well in the tier 1 races due to not needing to carry oxidizer.
      • Ramjets need to be supersonic. As the course is built for a subsonic racer it would probably not fare well (it would pull excessive G-forces in maneuvers)

        Plus it would no longer fit the criteria, what not being a rocket.

        -everphilski-

        • Re:Indeed (Score:4, Informative)

          by temojen (678985) on Monday October 03 2005, @02:41PM (#13706830) Journal
          Ramjets need to be supersonic.
          No, I believe you're referring to SCRAMjets. Ramjets just need a supersonic nozzle. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], especially:
          ...although inefficient at the slower speeds, are still more fuel-efficient than rockets within the atmosphere.
          .
          Plus it would no longer fit the criteria, what not being a rocket.
          From the parent:
          I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets
          I was just pointing out we needn't be limited to rockets, let alone chemical rockets. Rockets are good at some things, like propulsion in a vacuum. Propulsion at subsonic speeds at low altitude is not one of them.
    • How is this insightful? Nothing except for nuclear is going to surpass the energy densities of chemical rockets. Are you saying we should be working on nuclear engines? Yeah in the future fusion energy might be used to create the fuel for the rocket, but the rocket will be the same.
      • Nothing except for nuclear is going to surpass the energy densities of chemical rockets.

        Laserbeam-powered, solid-fuel rocket. Just keep a ground laser trained on the exhaust cone of the craft, and you'll have a highly efficient craft with oodles of power.

        There's also the question of how exotic are the engines allowed to get. Ramjets or other oxygen scoops might provide comperable power but better fuel economy. Not to mention the case of staging. Can the rocket be staged to drop mass in flight? What about the use of meta-stable fuels that require no oxydizer?

        You get the idea.
        • Laserbeam-powered

          Good luck getting that sort of laser power ;) Not to mention that the wallplug efficiency of lasers with good coherence over a long range is typically less than one percent.

          the case of staging

          Already done :) People try to keep staging to a minimum to reduce costs. While a tow stage, for example, isn't very complex, high-speed explosive separation from powerful boosters can be. It also makes setup and reuse more complicated.

          meta-stable fuels

          Everyone wants them; nobody has them ;) Being

      • Chemical rockets are simply too heavy to be realistically used for inter-planetary travel. What we really need is a type of propulsion that's much, much lighter for space travel.

        I've always felt throwing small things would be the best method. Maybe simple radioactive decay, or using a power source to spin something to immense speeds and "throw" it at regular intervals.

        Anywho, what I mean is chemical rockets are unrealistic for interplanetary travel, which is what we should be concentrating on if we're rea

    • Re:Non-chemical rockets (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Total_Wimp (564548) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:53PM (#13706415)
      I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.

      Better to be "grounded" in a working technology that can be improved, refined and used than to attempt nothing while we wait around for something better to come along.

      A bird in the hand...

      TW
    • I doubt they'll get approval for racing around in nuclear rockets above the Mojave desert though... :)

      --
      Use your bluetooth phone as a modem for Linux [arpx.net]

  • Reminds me of Air Racing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by W.Mandamus (536033) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:15PM (#13706104)
    Reminds me of the Air Races in the 20's and 30's that gave aviation its start. Undoubtably they hope for the same result.
    • It kind of warped me back to that era, or at least ficiton from then until the 60's when the public started watching rocket launches, as well.

      For a minute there, I really thought I was reading something from the old Tom Swift books I used to read.

      I literally expected to read the name Swift Enterprises as connected with racing rockets.

    • Re:Reminds me of Air Racing, except (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RayDude (798709) on Monday October 03 2005, @03:29PM (#13707232)
      These planes are going to be traveling at multiple times the speed of sound. Which means they can't race over populated areas because the sonic booms would disturb, shock and in some cases injur the inhabitants.

      And because they are going so fast, they have to go in a straight line, or as straight as is perceivable from say a ground based observatory.

      So they have to do it over land that has no population or over the ocean.

      Either way, not many spectators can watch it live.

      So now they have to shoot it with cameras, but from where? Another rocket plane? Not likely. The best thing is to have GPS tracking equipment on board which is then plotted on a web page and also shown on ESPN 8 (The Ocho). You watch by watching little dots move across the map at insanely fast speeds. Here's a sample of what you may see on the Tele.

      Announcer 1: "Well, Jim their engines are humming and they're ready be dropped from their respective 747s, its just a matter of moments until the race is under way."

      Announcer 2: "That's right John! And one hellofa race its going to be!"

      Announcer 1: "And there's the master timer telling all their flight computers to initiate a full burn and release from the 747!"

      Announcer 2: "Hopefully in reverse order John."

      Announcer 1: "Ha Ha! Yes, hopefully in reverse order."

      You see multiple views of the underside of various 747's with rocket planes dropping and then blasting away from the 747 at breathtaking speed.

      Announcer 2: "Now if you're all paying attention to the GPS tracking at www.rocketrace.net..."

      Announcer 1: "And we know you are, because there are over 20 million of you tuned to this webcast!"

      Announcer 2: "Woe!!!! Ken Tirbanker's rocket just blew up. Ken's emergency beacon is active so we assume that his cockpit survived the explosion, lets see if we can find a satelite that could view the spectacle. And if his electronics are alive then maybe we can show his condition and talk to him while he floats to the water."

      Announcer 1: "While Jim and the crew look for a satelite images and attempt to connect with Ken to discuss the explosion let me remind you that today's race is sponsored by Budwizer Beer, the beer for the Wizer beer drinker. How's it going Jim?"

      Announcer 2: "We're still looking at clips, they lost Ken's uplink so the electronics are gone, hope he's okay ... [in the background] I told you we should have assigned satellites to each racer, instead of panning and scanning randomly ... yeah sure six hundred million to launch six more birds, so what, I can't find the damn video!"

      Announcer 1: "The race is happening at 68 thousand feet on a course from Sydney to Los Angeles, the race is expected to last for less than two hours. At least for those who touch down in the desert. For Ken, its going to be a long couple of days."

      Announcer 2: "Ah HA! We got it, where's the damn mouse, give me that! Here's, I'm putting it up on Monitor six, switch to it..."

      And so on and so on.

      Its all doable, its just a whole different scale...

      Raydude
      • >> These planes are going to be traveling at multiple times the speed of sound.

        No, they are not faster than sound. You can tell from the illustrations of the modified VarEz that this is not a faster-than-sound craft: the front airfoil is not swept back. That is a very important detail.

        The single prop WW2 P52 Mustang could go much faster. Most fighers of that age could.

        What these toys lack in top speed, however, they will probably make up for in acceleration. I wonder what the 0 to 230MPH
      • These planes are going to be traveling at multiple times the speed of sound. Which means they can't race over populated areas because the sonic booms would disturb, shock and in some cases injur the inhabitants.

        Say what? What spec are you reading? From the official website:

        The first-generation of Mark-1 X-Racers will reach maximum speeds of more than 320 mph.

        What exactly is the speed of sound? Let's consider today's conditions in Las Vegas, Nevada: 85F, 11% humidity. That would equate to 780 mph.

        So the jets

  • Crashes (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaHat (247651) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:16PM (#13706108) Homepage
    One major upshot of all of this is all of those who think the only good thing about auto racing is fantastic crashes... will no doubt enjoy such a league.

    Something to be said for a rocket powered crater generator.

  • Hrmm.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by axonal (732578) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:16PM (#13706110)
    Pod Racing anyone?

  • F-Zero anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SSilver2k2 (820869) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:17PM (#13706119) Homepage
    I immediatly thought of F-Zero when I heard of this. Stuff like this has always interested me. :)

  • Crashes... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:17PM (#13706123)
    They say people only watch Nascar for the crashes: imagine what the viewing figures will be when you add in that extra power and degree of movement. Even the delightfully alliterative name of 'Rocket Racing' couldn't get any more Looney-Tunes-spiralling-into-a-canyon-wall stylee. The advertisers must be rubbing their hands with anticipation at the viewing figures.

  • In the words of Howard Hugues... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sherlocktk (260059) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:17PM (#13706126) Homepage
    From the movie the aviator when Howard Hughes is trying to make his movie "Hells Angles" He had a problem showing the speed of the aircraft when in the air. It was determined he needed coulds to show it. I don't think this will work because the planes will not look fast on TV because there will be nothing behind them to show there speed.
  • If they are able to film this, it would be better than NASCAR. NASCAR can get really repititious. But install several POV cameras on these rockets, and audiences could see racing where the scenery actually changes.

  • That's it we are officially into the 21th Century. (Score:4, Funny)

    by timeToy (643583) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:20PM (#13706148)
    A resources wasting, spectator unfriendly, impossibly loud and let's face it unpopular new sport is ill-born.
    Expect the first and only season to be broadcasted at night on ESPN2 between Ginsu knife and Bowfex infomercial.

  • First Deaths? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rob Carr (780861) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:21PM (#13706155) Homepage Journal
    Deaths occur in racing sports like NASCAR, drag racing, cycling, and even running and triathlons. But what will public perception be the first time it happens in the RRL?
  • I almost have to laugh at the number of peanut gallery comments I could make on this subject, but I won't (yeah, I'm no fun).

    The idea seems sound and having the FAA at least sound like it's giving some sort of approval to the idea tells me that they've got some of the basic kinks worked out to the point that it's not total crack smoking.

    of course, the safety issues are going to be brutal to tackle. They can keep drivers safe from some spectacular crashes, but plane crashses have an amazing tendency to be lethal. Add in the whole idea that you would push your vehicle to the limit to get an edge, I suspect you'll see all sorts of liability issues. Let alone the first plane that crashes into the spectators....

  • Co-sponsored by... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nonetheless (600533) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:24PM (#13706175)
    an award named after a well known scientist. [darwinawards.com]

  • "Course?" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mhollis (727905) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:24PM (#13706178) Journal

    I still don't understand what the course is supposed to look like: From the article:

    Courses are expected to be approximately two miles long, one mile wide, and about 5,000 feet high, running perpendicularly to spectators. The rocket planes, called X-Racers, will take off from a runway both in a staggered fashion and side-by side and fly a course based on the design of a Grand Prix competition, with long straight-aways, vertical ascents, and deep banks.

    5,000 feet is an altitude that may be covered in seconds by a rocket at speed. A two-mile length with a curved track, like Grand Prix race cars use would require a kind of manoverability not seen on any rocket-powered craft.

    The competition would certainly bar solid rocket motors, which go full-out continuously and cannot be throttled or shut down. I cannot imagine any braking system that would allow such a craft to slow down adequately for a "turn." The dynamics of these racers would appear to all but defy anything we have ever produced.

    And such a craft would not necessarily operate in outer space. The ability to manover like that is the kind of thing you would need a gravity well to check your speed.

    • Gah. RTFA. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by everphilski (877346) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:34PM (#13706273) Journal
      RTFA.

      5,000 feet is an altitude that may be covered in seconds by a rocket at speed. No, it will be covered at 5000/(Velocity in Feet Per Seconds) seconds.

      With a max speed of 320 MPH (which you surely would not be doing in a maneuvering course) a two mile length of track would take 22.5 seconds per lap. Faster than NASCAR, yes. But that's the point.

      The article specifically states kerosene engines. Kerosene is a liquid at all but the most extreme temperatures.

      I cannot imagine any braking system that would allow such a craft to slow down adequately for a "turn."

      It's called aerodynamics. Flaps. And you won't be gunning it most of the time. It depends on the course.

      The dynamics of these racers would appear to all but defy anything we have ever produced.

      Check out XCOR's website. The spec listed on the Rocket Racing website is very similar to the bird XCOR is currently flying, and will be flying at the XPRIZE cup.

      And such a craft would not necessarily operate in outer space. No !@#$

      -everphilski-

  • Sounds like good movie fodder (Score:5, Funny)

    by mister_llah (891540) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:25PM (#13706193) Homepage Journal
    Can you say...

    "WAY 2 FAST, WAY 2 FURIOUS" :)

  • SPONSORS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann@slashdot.gmail@com> on Monday October 03 2005, @01:31PM (#13706243) Homepage Journal
    And the X-Race will be sponsored by: (check all that apply)

    [ ] Insurance companies
    [ ] Medical Services
    [ ] Annointments for scratches
    [ ] Parachute companies
    [ ] Funeral Services

  • You can help... call them pussies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Baldrson (78598) * on Monday October 03 2005, @01:32PM (#13706255) Homepage Journal
    From: jim_bow...@hotmail.com
    Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport.nascar
    Subject: X-Prize Cup
    Date: 30 Sep 2005 12:11:18 -0700


    John Carmack, author of the 3D first person shooter video games, Doom and Quake, has put his money to good use by funding a small group to build a reusable rocket. Is going to be running 3 flights an hour at the up-coming X-Prize Cup:

    http://www.xpcup.com/index.cfm [xpcup.com]

    You might want to see his latest test at:

    http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2005_09_24/200 5_09_27_hoverTest.mpg [armadilloaerospace.com]

    So my question to the NASCAR guys is this:

    Are you going to let this geek make you look like pussies or are you going to show him how power engineering gets done?

  • Looks like Long-EZs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vijayiyer (728590) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:33PM (#13706259)
    They basically look like Long-EZs (The Burt Rutan designed kit plane, http://www.ez.org/ [ez.org]), with rocket engines.

  • Utopia! (Score:3, Funny)

    by BJZQ8 (644168) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:39PM (#13706316) Homepage Journal
    Maybe we can all afford it once we get to Kurzweil's Utopia!

  • Might be boring (Score:3, Insightful)

    by doctor_no (214917) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:40PM (#13706321)
    The Sky is a pretty empty place, mostly blue during the day, sometimes with clouds. It's going to be very difficult to keep track of what is going on. Most sports, have markers, and visual cues that tell the audience of the position and events of each player. From looking at the concept pictures and reading the idea it seems that they will have a reletively complicated preset course that they will be flying in the air. I'm not sure how the spectator or the audience are suppose to follow the race, any tactics involving overtaking, technique, etc etc will be entirely lost.

    Conceptually, it sounds incredibly exciting, but I'm scared that I will be watching a plane fly around against a blue backgroud for a couple of hours.

  • It will only be cool (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:47PM (#13706375)
    When they can do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.

  • Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dpaton.net (199423) on Monday October 03 2005, @01:58PM (#13706457) Homepage Journal
    This is pretty sweet. The jet powered Long-EZ [xcor.com] has been around a while, and was flown at one of the X-Prize events by Dick Rutan. There's also a jet powered Cozy, which I won't like to because it's hosted on a very small server, that looks a lot slicker but doesn't perform as well as the XCOR EZ. I saw the EZ-rocket at Oshkosh in '02, and it went like a bat outta hell.

    The day of high performance jet homebuilts is upon us!

    OK, maybe not, but I can dream, right? Ever since I saw the Microjet [bd-micro.com] for the firs time, I've been waiting for this. Now it's closer than ever.

    -dave
  • I can't help but think of the airplane racing in The Rocketeer [imdb.com], but not near as exciting. Also of an old game called "Slipstream 5000."

    NASCAR [nascar.com], Indy [indyracing.com], and F1 [formula1.com] are all technologically advance machines driven for extended amounts of time at high speeds along exciting circuits capabale of seating hundreds of thousands of fans during all kinds of weather and track conditions. All teams command a multitude of sponsors from various industries and include a manufacturer of core equipment, like Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, McLaren, Ferrari, etc. The core manufacturer uses technology derived from their respective racing teams and eventually use it in products they sell to customers.

    Which is where the problem comes in...
    Commercially, this is not viable because:

    1. Airframe, Powerplant, and other suppliers are not going to sell this technolgoy at some point to consumers, at least within the next 50 years.
    2. Where are people going to watch this from? Auto racing packs in the crowds because people can get close to the racing, even though they might not see much of the track.
    3. Seriously, 3-4 laps of glide time and 4 min of available thrust between 5-10 minute pit stops?? BOOOOORING!!! Especially versus 30-50 laps between less than 15 second pit stops...and not to mention 300-500+ mile races!
    4. Most people cannot relate to a "rocket racer" because they don't own a rocket plane. Its very easy to relate to a race car driver because you own a car.
    5. $$$$....To own a basic pro-circuit auto racing team, its millions of dollars in costs. A rocket racing team would have extremely high upfront costs, high maintenance costs, and probably low payout. Poor ROI.

    I'm not trying to bash the Rocket Racing League idea, as I think its a neat concept, especially concerning space technology development. I just strongly believe it not to be commercially viable and will not be very popular. Good Luck anyways.
    Amigori

  • Reno air races (Score:5, Informative)

    by theycallmeB (606963) on Monday October 03 2005, @02:33PM (#13706775)
    They are also joining forces with the organizers of the annual Reno Air Races [airrace.org] that were held just a couple weeks ago. Similar to grand prix road races, there are several classes of air racers, the biggest and fastest being the piston-powered Unlimiteds (mostly stripped and re-engined WWII-era fighters). Courses are low to the ground and marked by giant pylons. From the article, it seems the rocket racers are planning more vertical courses so it will be intersting the see how those are plotted. Maybe GPS and a virtual track shown on a heads-up display?

    For those pointing out that some people watch NASCAR mostly for the crashes, crashes at Reno usually involve a distant thud, a cloud of smoke and little good news. Everybody maintains a healthy distance between aircraft, crowd others out of the course and you get grounded, do it too often (as in more than once or twice), and you get banned.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.