The Car Faster Than a Speeding Bullet 405
pbahra writes "Formula 1 is seen as the apogee of engineering excellence and automotive power. So it says something that in Bloodhound SSC — the car that, if all goes well, in 2013 will shatter the current land speed record — the Cosworth Formula 1 engine is just the fuel pump. 'We are creating the ultimate car; we're going where no-one has gone before,' said Richard Noble, the project director. The car, which Mr. Noble says takes £10,000 a day just to keep it ticking over, will be powered by not one, but two other engines. The smaller one, the EJ200, is normally found in the British Royal Air Force's Typhoon jet. Its job is to get the 13.4 meter long car up to 350 mph. That's when the big one kicks in. The big one is the 18-inch diameter, 12-foot-long Falcon rocket, the largest of its kind ever made in the UK. Its job is to catapult the car through the sound barrier to its maximum speed of 1,050 mph. That is, literally, faster than a speeding bullet."
Efficiency (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to doubt that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
By itself, that is an interesting figure. However, an aircraft carrier is just a bit bigger than a car. Even a big car!
True, but an aircraft carrier doesn't go over 1K mph either.
Re: (Score:2)
Concorde did.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not see the carrier part ... withdrawing my post
Re: (Score:3)
I did not see the carrier part ... withdrawing my post
Impressive fail. (There's a slight difference between an aircraft and an aircraft carrier).
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine also had a '70s Newport.
When the tow truck was coming to take it to the shredder we had an engine blowing party. We put a brick on the gas pedal and planned on drinking beer until the engine exploded. Which it didn't, it seized up when the fire department showed up and made us take the brick of the gas pedal. There had only been a small oil fire which was put out when the radiator hose burst, spoiled sports.
I was so impressed with that 383 that I much later bought a '60 Saratoga with s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you're not doing it while posting to /. you're not efficient at all.
Daniel Jubb's Mustache (Score:2)
The Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
The real challenge is not getting a vehicle to go that speed... It's getting a vehicle to stay on the ground and under control at that speed.
Re: (Score:3)
The real challenge is not getting a vehicle to go that speed... It's getting a vehicle to stay on the ground and under control at that speed.
Right. And that's where the really, really, REALLY big one kicks in to generate enough downforce. It's a bundle of 5 modified Saturn V's.
Re: (Score:3)
Would've been funnier if you hadn't chosen a number greater than the number of Saturn Vs still in existence. There are basically three mostly-complete ones on display: one at Johnson Space Center, one at Kennedy, and one at Huntsville, Alabama at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. There's a replica at the last one too, as well as a few other sections scattered around various exhibits and museums around the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real challenge is not getting a vehicle to go that speed... It's getting a vehicle to stay on the ground and under control at that speed.
Exactly. It shouldn't be "fastest car." It should be "lowest flying rocket." And when you think about it, what exactly is the point of building such a rocket?
Re: (Score:2)
BEST. ROADKILL. EVAR!!!
*goes back to playing Carmageddon*
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It shouldn't be "fastest car." It should be "lowest flying rocket." And when you think about it, what exactly is the point of building such a rocket?
Well it stays under the radar for one thing.
Though only useful for targeting sites that are situated on salt flats.
Re: (Score:2)
The real challenge is not getting a vehicle to go that speed... It's getting a vehicle to stay on the ground and under control at that speed.
Right. Producing enough downforce has dominated racing for years. Power hasn't been the problem for decades.
1050 MPH? Thats not very fast for a bullet. (Score:4, Informative)
1050 MPH? Thats not very fast for a bullet.
Well, maybe it is fairly good for a pistol.
But it is about half the speed of a 5.56mm NATO round from an M-16.
Re:1050 MPH? Thats not very fast for a bullet. (Score:4, Informative)
1540 feet per second is a respectable bullet.
Handgun rounds generally are around 1000 feet per second. 30 caliber carbine is about 1500 fps.
Yeah a .223 which is one of the small and fast rounds can push 2500 feet/second or higher. The fastest rifle rounds go around 3800... but still I'd consider anything over 800 fps to qualify as "faster than a speeding bullet".
Re: (Score:2)
A hot 9mm Parabellum can get close to that speed.
Magnum pistol rounds often get higher.
Every military rifle ammunition that pops into my head gets at least 2000 feet per second.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, at that speed you don't have time to feel it.
I know I am a jokester, but that was entirely unintentional.
You got me.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? .308 goes a lot faster, so does my .300 winmag. Loaded with the nice barnes copper rounds that goes 3500 fps. In case you doubt me, here is the proof:
9mm loaded hot go that fast.
http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=750 [federalpremium.com]
A .223 is not a fast round. I have owned air rifles that beat 800 fps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
9mm is that fast and loaded hot can be pushed higher. .22 is for kids and shooting rats/squirrels, might as well claim this is faster than a pellet gun.
Normal power rifles are much faster, heck many pistol rounds are.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, even .22 rounds that are faster than this are common. This should just say, faster than a speeding ball out of a musket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:1050 MPH? Thats not very fast for a bullet. (Score:4, Funny)
Fucking inaccurate journalism, as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you might as well include pellet guns, or paintball markers.
No Ramp? Not Interested (Score:2)
If there's anything that can make a triple jet powered car cooler, it's launching it up off a ramp.
Re: (Score:2)
Things traveling at 1000 mph tend to act more like fluids upon collision. Even if the ramp had a relatively mild slope, it would be hard not to just become a smear on the surface of it.
Re: (Score:3)
And you don't want to see that? Especially with slow-motion replay?
Re: (Score:3)
Alright! Someone understands!
I have an idea! (Score:2)
Wait, wait, wait - so what happens if I fire a speeding bullet from the car while the car is in motion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, they should fire the bullet in a forward arc such that the bullet impacts the driver in the back of the head.
Re: (Score:2)
The bullet comes out pretty fast. ME-262's were doing it 70 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
F1 not the "apogee of...automotive power." (Score:2)
Formula 1 is seen as the apogee of engineering excellence and automotive power.
F1 may be the pinnacle of engineering excellence (though Le Mans racers may give 'em a run for the their money...?), but in terms of raw "automotive power," NHRA Top Fuel [wikipedia.org] has F1 beat by an order of magnitude (F1 ~ 1k bhp, Top Fuel ~ 10k bhp).
True, a dragster may not be able to run for more than a few seconds without blowing up, but that's beside the point...
Re: (Score:2)
F1 is of course very heavily limited. Engine size, for example, is intentionally capped.
It used to be a relative free-for-all but the cars got too fast to be safe (at least in the minds of the FIA).
Re: (Score:2)
The Le Mans 24-hour is far, far cooler than F1. Even the stuff earlier in the day like they hybrid and electric racing cars - last year I watched one of the hybrid Audis coast silently down the straight to Mulsanne, then launch like a bomb going off as the engine kicked back in and all the drive motors powered up - gone. Amazing.
In the actual race, the diesel Audis took the podium, and the Peugeot diesels made a decent show too. Bear in mind that these racing cars are running on the same diesel you put i
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah F1 engines are only 2.4L, and a huge number of other restrictions like 18k RPM, single fuel injector, standard fuel... Even the air ducts are heavily regulated. Sucks if you were wanting to watch the fastest cars that can still go around corners, but it does keep things sane and leads to a lot of development on the other stuff.
But their parties top Charlie Sheen's (Score:2)
F1 may be the pinnacle of engineering excellence
http://jalopnik.com/#!373884/f1-boss-max-mosley-caught-with-five-hookers-in-nazi-orgy-video-scandal
True, a dragster may not be able to run for more than a few seconds without blowing up
Well, how true that fits into this context.
nice (Score:3)
That'll cut down on the commute, but what's the CO2?
Competiting team: Aussie Invader (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they stole everything they needed to get this done?
A strange breed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It also highlights the brain's ability to adapt to ludicrously high speeds, which has come in handy as we've gone further up the technological progress curve.
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to be the one to say it, but this does seem utterly pointless.
Not in the "we should be spending money on hospitals" sense, but rather "all you're doing is taking a rocket and trying to cripple its flying tendencies". There are so many more cool inspire-the-kids (which is the nominal point) projects they could do! Here are some crazier and more cool ideas I just had:
* A manned quadrocopter.
* A massive computer-controlled Archimedes mirror.
* An Asimov-style multi-speed travelator.
* A Back to the Future hover-board using active magnetic levitation.
Those would all be way more awesome than "Oh its a rocket with wheels attached". /rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Massive computer-controlled Archimedes mirrors are awesome and cool:
http://ecofuture.net/aliceinwonderland/wp-content/blogs.dir/3/files/solar_power_plants/solar_two.jpg [ecofuture.net]
1050 mph = 1540 feet per second (Score:2)
That is one slow bullet. Faster than a very slow bullet maybe, this is only modern pistol round velocities. Heck, some pistols like the FN Five-seven chuck rounds faster than this.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is an ancient round, and loaded with a crazy heavy bullet. Even that round loaded just a little hot with a lighter bullet for the caliber will hit this speed. For evidence:
http://www.rbcd.net/Personal [rbcd.net] Defense- Ammo.htm
Car? (Score:2)
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the job of the 800 break horse power internal combustion engine is to deliver fuel into the rocket engine (not the jet engine). But the rocket is a solid fuel booster (essentially a glorified fireworks motor). Err wait, what? What do you need a fuel pump for a solid fuel rocket booster?
It's not a pure solid fuel rocket. It contains solid fuel, but then they pump hydrogen peroxide thru the rocket as an oxidizer. That's being pumped by the F1 engine. Seeing how it has to pump one ton of HTP in 22 seconds [bloodhoundssc.com], you can see why they need that much power for the pump. More details on the rocket engine. [bloodhoundssc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No word about brakes (Score:2)
You people are so fucking depressing (Score:4, Insightful)
I've just been scrolling through some of the comments above. "Why bother?" "Spend money on hospitals!" "What are we going to learn from this?" "This isn't really a car because the power isn't going through the wheels." "Waste of money!" "There are cooler projects to spend money on!"
You know what? Get over yourselves!
Every time I see a cool story posted on /. I find myself bracing for the impact of a squillion know-it-all comments about how useless it is from the usual armchair "I call bullshit" merchants who think they have all the answers to all the world's problems. Oftentimes it's American commenters from the "not invented here" lobby who want to pull a World Cup defence and say "Well it's a bullshit competition anyway so we don't care if we get whipped!" Grow the fuck up! The Brits have made the land speed record their own and I for one tip my hat to them. It's a great way to inspire kids to get involved in engineering, just like your toy with the heavy wings and expensive heat shield up there at the minute.
So the UK government is pushing a sponsorship-funded R&D project that doesn't have immediate commercial payoff. Big deal! What would you prefer to spend the money on? Another day in Iraq?
Jesus wept! Can we not have a story posted on here anymore without having to wade through all this obnoxious crap?
Oh, and I have karma to burn, so knock yourself out if you don't like a bit of straight talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You people are so fucking depressing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
disband the English royalty, sell off their assets, and then finance such projects
I think you spell it "behead".
fuel pump? (Score:4, Informative)
Strictly speaking, the F1 engine is actually the oxidiser pump for the hybrid rocket engine - it runs the peroxide pump.
(i'll go back and lock myself in the basement now)
Supersonic taxiing (Score:2)
Pilot-in-training: "So my landing went well, don't you think?"
Flight Instructor: "Yes, but you forgot one thing. You are supposed to slow down before we land. We are now doing Mach 1, on the ground."
Budweiser Rocket. (Score:3)
They were claiming that sound barrier wasnt broken on land, because the device that did it (budweiser rocket) had 3 wheels and didnt run a full course of some distance back and forth in some given amount of time. Budweiser rocket's record was determined with an air force radar.
The catch is this, these rules are the rules of british association of motor sports or cars or something. apparently, some people somewhere have the opinion that breaking sound barrier should happen on 4 wheels, and a round circu
aah never mind. as you can understand, like any other sane people on the face of the planet, i dont give a flying fuck about what some bunch of people who banded as an association somewhere think - sound barrier is going over ~340m/s, and a 3 wheeled rocket powered device has broken it long before anyone else.
im saying this, even tho im not american. so, go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At those speeds if you hit a bump it's a crapshoot as to which parts of you will be airborne and which will remain on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which of course is the real thing here, this is, for all intents and purposes, a rocket that happens to fly horizontally, very, very close to the ground, that is using a few wheels for stability purposes. It's cool, but it would be cooler to me if the wheels were actually applying power to the road, instead of just being for stability.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as subsidizing automobiles, I agree -- the entire automobile infrastructure should be paid for by gas tax and DMV fees. Americans should be paying as much as Europeans do for petrol.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we already know how to control rockets that go into outer space, and we already know how to make things go fast on the ground.
So I'm not sure who's really going to benefit from putting those two things together.
We already know that going fast on the ground is nowhere near as fast as we can go by not being on the ground. A nice cruise missile would kick this thing's ass in a drag race.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
But what useful knowledge would we gain from this experiment?
I mean, we get supersonic vehicle to stay on the ground at speeds where it would most definitely rather fly. It's not all that useful. We develop air drag model and shape for a vehicle which has no practical purpose, nor ever will. We spend lots of money and resources just to develop a variant of a jet plane we forcibly keep from flying, for no good reason but to call it a "car" and beat a "ground" speed record.
I still say it''s a waste: the little we can actually learn from this could be either learned using vastly less resources, or the resources could be used to learn something vastly more useful.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, we get supersonic vehicle to stay on the ground at speeds where it would most definitely rather fly. It's not all that useful. We develop air drag model and shape for a vehicle which has no practical purpose, nor ever will
Bullet trains?
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
The decades of high-speed train engineering has involved reducing drag wherever possible. Infact some future concepts are looking at running maglev trains through vacuum tubes as the only possible way to reduce drag further and close the gap between train and aircraft fuel efficiency.
So no, I can't see a single benefit this gas-guzzling rocket-propelled coffin will have for Bullet trains.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
I know someone who is involved in the Bloodhound project, working with a large education company over here (one of the sponsors of the car). There is a really big focus on the education side of things with this; they're touring schools and colleges doing presentations, along with a full size replica of the car. One of the big reasons for doing it is to get kids at school interested in science, maths and engineering and that seems like a pretty good idea because there has been a continuing decline in students going on to study those subjects at higher levels in the UK (and I believe most Western countries these days).
There's a bit about it on their website http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/education.cfm [bloodhoundssc.com] . I also doubt that the overall resource usage for the entire project is actually that high (I'd bet fewer resources used than most Hollywood films for instance), so if it increases interest in the areas they're targeting so that general science and engineering gets a bit more attention, I don't think that's too bad a result.
.
We learn again what it means to be free (Score:3)
Free to do what we want that does not harm others. Free to express ourselves. Free to take risks. Free to just do it because no one else has done it before.
Sure the results are not useful, but is racing useful? Are any spectator sports useful? It all comes down to, did someone enjoy it, did someone find the technical limitations they had to engineer around interesting? There are many reasons to do this and I am sure many others not to do it. Yet where is the harm? Before someone screams "THE ENVIRONMENT" -
Your Vote. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still say it''s a waste: the little we can actually learn from this could be either learned using vastly less resources, or the resources could be used to learn something vastly more useful.
Sometimes you need to do something that seems wasteful today to open the door for useful things down the line. Was it clear 140 years ago that Babbage's Analytical Engine was a key stepping stone towards pocket-sized super computers?
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
I, for one, am glad I live in a world where the practical dominates my day-to-day, but the fantastical is occasionally made reality.
Get your head out of your bank acocunt balance, and enjoy the dream... Especially since you're not writing the checks, and the dream looks like a fun one.
It's their money (Score:5, Insightful)
It's their money, their hobby, their time. It's nobody else's business.
Re: (Score:3)
We no longer live in a world of infinite resources in which we can just leave everyone to their own devices. Libertarian ethics make perfect sense on ringworld. This isn't ringworld.
Re: (Score:3)
Geez you are a smug prig. These guys are spending such an incredibly small percentage of the earth's resources that trying to control it would waste more in resources and time than the hobby itself.
Besides hating libertarians so much that you don't know what they are, what makes you think you or anyone else is qualified to make such decisions for other people? How many hobbies do you have that waste resources? I bet you've got more clothes than you need, eat out at restaurants, stay in hotels. You don't
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
People like you are why socialism doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, without narrow-minded right-wing whiners Socialism would work just great.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most international shipping is done via ships, then it goes onto a train and finally a truck. No reason why roads could not be self funding via fuel taxes. If anything it would make the market forces act more rationally and would increase the use of trains thus decreasing fossil fuel consumption. What exactly have you got against a functioning rational market?
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good use our our civilization's precious natural resources.
Well that's kind of who we are as a civilization. We climb mountains because they are there. We landed on the moon, half because we wanted to challenge ourselves (and half to show our economic system was better than communism...).
It's a general feature of life to use resources like mad without thinking long-term until the resource is nearly depleted and we have no choice. Natural selection really grilled that lesson in deep before it gave us brains smart enough to begin to question it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good use our our civilization's precious natural resources. Sorry, but I hate cars, and I hate spending money maintaining the infrastructure that makes them practical (e.g. without tons of Gov't funds for roads, oil subsidies, etc cars wouldn't have caught on).
What use is a baby?
Re: (Score:2)
You can eat it for one. It also can be used when it grows to childhood for all kinds of labor.
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
I guess that is a rather modest proposal....
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see how this rocket car and government highway subsidies are more than tangentially related. It just looks more like a random rant than anything else. I guess the best you can do is try to have everything you don't like taxed out of existence.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate spending money maintaining the infrastructure that makes them practical
This little experiment is about as far from "make it practical" as it gets, so why all the hate?
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody has something that they wish the government didn't spend tax money on. I for one, wish the defense budget was an order of magnitude lower. There are lots of people who worry about their tax money paying for an abortion. You don't like the automotive infrastructure. Of all the things that might get scaled way back, I'm guessing "roads" isn't even a consideration for a huge majority of the voters in the US. I'm also thinking that most people believe the rise of the car was good for America. It certa
Re: (Score:3)
You hate a technology that has been a massive boon to humanity. It may not be perfect, but then what is? Those imperfections are what people are trying to address on a daily basis.
This vehicle might seem pointless on a superficial level. I bet there were people who also thought launching Sputnik into orbit was pointless. But look at what it's brought us. A lot of technological advance, probably most, came about via indirect routes. It's not like someone sat around one day and decided out of the blue we're g
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This not a car. (Score:4, Interesting)
I took a tire off my car and dropped it on the ground. Suddenly the Earth had a wheel. Now the Earth is not only the largest car, but also the fastest -- going around the Sun at 67,000 mph....
Re: (Score:2)
If they use a formula 1 engine as a fuel pump, they can probably turn that engine off, to turn the rocket off.
Re: (Score:3)
Is something like this really a car? The only thing it has in common is tires. If I strap tires to a whale, would that also be a car?
Yes. Its my grandfather's Cadillac.
If you cannot drive it through normal city traffic, can it really be considered a car?
I see you've met my grandfaather.
This thing would have problems just avoiding tall buildings, shorter ones would just be flown over.
So, he gets the pedals mixed up once in a while. The DMV says he still can drive.