backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by SKCooper.. on Oct 28 at 10:36 AM


The thirst for speed starts at a young age.  (Source: Columbia Pictures)

The Bloodhound team, composed of members of the team that built the first sound-barrier breaking car, are aiming even higher by attempting to build the first car to almost reach Mach 1.4.  (Source: Bloodhound Programme)

The car will be piloted by Andy Green, a crack pilot from the Royal Air Force. The test run is planned for 2011, and the team hopes to get the car up to speeds of 1,000 mph, almost thirty percent faster than the previous car speed record.  (Source: Bloodhound Programme)

The Bloodhound SSC is literally a rocket strapped to a frame and wheels.  (Source: Bloodhound Programme)
"It's the fastest who get paid and it's the fastest who get..." - Reese Bobby

The title of fastest in the world has a nice ring of it.  Whether its natural super-humans like Michael Phelps in the water or Usain Bolt on land, or top pilots in the sky or drivers on the ground, mankind has always had a thirst for speed.

None know this thirst better, perhaps, than ace pilot Andy Green, a member of Britain's Royal Air Force.  When he's not behind the controls of ultra-expensive fighter jets he devotes time to his real passion: speed.  Green holds the record of piloting the fastest land vehicle ever, set with him at the helm of the rocket-powered Thrust SSC, which reached 763 MPH on a dusty desert track one day in October 1997.  You might think such accomplishments would yield a measure of satisfaction -- but Green is not satisfied.

He and a team of top engineers are working together to design the next generation of supercar, which he hopes will about 33 percent faster than the previous speed record.  Their baby is named the Bloodhound SSC (supersonic car) and they plan on surpassing 1,000 MPH -- Mach 1.4 is roughly 1,065 MPH at sea-level.  This would not only put the record for fastest car to shame, but it would outdo the low altitude plane record of 994 MPH.

While Green may be the daredevil behind the wheel, Richard Noble, who also project-led the Thrust SSC and himself held the world speed record between 1994 and 1997, is the brains behind the endeavor and its mastermind.  He lives for the chance to see a car reach these blisteringly-fast speeds.  He enthuses, "The next three years are going to be tough, testing and damned exciting."

The basic design for the Bloodhoud SSC was revealed this week at the London's Science Museum.  The car has a long tapered body, looking much like a rocket in car guise.  It is 12.8 meters long and weighs a hefty 6.4 tons.  Its wheels reach 10,000 rpm at its top planned speed. 

While some question the practicality of the team's unquenchable thirst for speed, Noble says that the project is as much to inspire creative engineering as anything else.  He states, "I've met graduate engineers who are adamant that our previous record was what inspired their career choice as youngsters: that sort of thing makes all the effort worthwhile. Bloodhound SSC will be so much faster and, we hope, will fire up every school kid about the science and technology."

The project is financed entirely by private sponsorships.  Despite its outlandish nature, some real technological improvements could arise out of the extremes it subjects its components to.  Paul Drayson, science minister for the UK government is enamored enough by the project to fund an accompanying education program.  He states, "This project is not just about the bragging rights to the world land speed record. This will result in tangible scientific developments that will benefit all, for example in areas such as fuel efficiency and safety and which could be used in the cars we drive in the future."

The team hopes to make their record run in 2011.

They are currently in the process of selecting the optimal track.  Track regularity and conditions become enormously important to a successful run and the kind of epic speeds the team is thirsting for.  It needs to be perfectly flat, with no plant cover, and feature 10 miles of open ground.  It would also need to be completely dry at least 3 months a year and be able to hold the facilities and housing necessary to support the attempt.

So far the team has narrowed the choice to 14 candidate locations -- eight in the United States, four in Australia, one in Turkey and one in South Africa.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I call BS
By Totally on 10/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: I call BS
By Aeonic on 10/24/2008 12:08:20 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know how everyone can just assume we won't learn anything useful due to the main idea being so far from normal.

These kinds of challenges always seem to come up with interesting results. "Yeah this [conventional method] wouldn't work, but we developed [new method]." That kind of thing often applies to other areas.

In other words, nobody needs a car that goes mach 1.4. But what they learn while attemtping this goal could be useful to everyone.

One small example - wheels that can support this really heavy car with who knows how much downforce spinning at 10,000 rpm? What if they discover a material from which to make bearings that are more efficient and generate no heat than current tech (because say, the existing ones keep melting). That could have immediate practical use elsewhere. And it's just one small part of the whole.

It seems like there would be a lot of potential to learn new things, and I don't think that's ever a waste.


RE: I call BS
By nafhan on 10/24/2008 12:48:49 PM , Rating: 5
A great example of this is the space program and/or military research. Most of us aren't going to ride the space shuttle or launch a satellite anytime soon, but there's a decent chance that you'll use your GPS today .


RE: I call BS
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/24/2008 3:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
Cars reaching almost the speed of sound had already been built and tested ages ago.
The interesting experiment would be to build a car than can sustain such high speeds without needing resorting to a rocket engine, which also has already been built and tested (I think blue flame was the name of a > 1000km/h - 624.7mph car, that was built in the late 80s, early 90s I believe).

So, the wheel problem, the chassis heat problem, and so on have already been put to test at extreme car speeds. Adding a 40% more speed won't add much else from this perspective.

Yes, of course we can always learn and with today's tech we can do crazier things than before, but my point is that our possible learning from this will be minimal, as rocket cars are not new at all.


RE: I call BS
By 91TTZ on 10/24/2008 5:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
The Blue Flame was from the late 60's, early 70's I think.


RE: I call BS
By S3anister on 10/25/2008 3:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
1970, to be exact.


RE: I call BS
By 9nails on 10/25/2008 4:54:00 PM , Rating: 3
The BlueFlame was a rocket car BTW.

If Wiki's are anything to believe, then the record for the fastest Internal Combustion engine (IC) was set in September 16, 1947 by the "Railton Mobil Special" at 394.19 MPH / 634.39 KPH at a distance over 1 mile using twin 12 cylinder engines. Not that it's related to the article.

But going up a few posts, I really do think that it would be cool to revisit the record with an IC engine. I mean, 1947 was a long time ago! I see F1 Racing motors spinning 22,000+ RPM and Drag Racing motors burning up the blacktop with 8,000 horse power, with those drag racing cars approaching 330+ MPH in 1/4 mile. A lot has been improved since 1947! I would love to see what the top speed of those would be.


RE: I call BS
By George Powell on 10/26/2008 4:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
The original Thrust SSC which broke the land speed record in 1997 was not powered by rockets but by 2 Rolls Royce Spey turbojets.

This new vehicle, financed by the same team will be powered by a rocket to start with, to get it near the sound barrier and then by a single reheating turbofan engine lifted from a Eurofighter Typhoon. I would imagine that the greater thrust control offered by the jet engine will be more desirable than having a rocket at these high speeds.

Still can't wait to see it run, whether or not it produces any technology for the common man.


RE: I call BS
By Totally on 10/25/2008 2:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not ssying they won't learn anything but the author specifically stated fuel efficiency and safety in future automobiles, and that is a road already traveled.


Simpler and cheaper solution
By PrinceGaz on 10/24/2008 2:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
Rather than build a car that can reach Mach 1.4, why not build a manned rocket-sled and fire it along the nearly 10 mile long track at Holloman Air Force Base. They've had unmanned sleds up to Mach 8.5, so I'm sure they could get a manned one to Mach 2 easily enough. Turning it around for the reverse run in the time allowed is the only real difficult I forsee, but it would still be a lot cheaper and safer than doing those sort of speeds in a car.




RE: Simpler and cheaper solution
By Nfarce on 10/24/2008 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They've had unmanned sleds up to Mach 8.5, so I'm sure they could get a manned one to Mach 2 easily enough.


Putting something on a rail that needs zero controllability other than power kinda defeats the engineering challenge argument, wouldn't ya think?


RE: Why?
By Motoman on 10/24/2008 10:54:55 AM , Rating: 4
...it's like a great many things out there that people do that others look at and ask "why?"...

...and the answer is always the same. If you know, you need no explanation. If you don't know, no explanation is possible.

I'd give darn near anything to be the one piloting that suicide-o-matic. Why? Because I would.




It's a rocket on land
By pixelslave on 10/26/2008 2:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to ruin the fun, but this is really more like a rocket on land than a "car". I am no engineer, but I think with a car, the vehicle's movement comes from the wheel's rotation. But with this "rocket", the movement seems to be coming from the rocket engine.




RE: It's a rocket on land
By piroroadkill on 10/27/2008 8:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, actually, and while rocket cars are interesting, I'd like to see more people try with engines that drive the wheels


A Jet on Roller Skates
By snownpaint on 10/24/2008 10:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Power to them.. To me it seems like a super jet on roller skates.

I bet it would be cool to see and hear.

Stand back Buckaroo Banzai..




Minor nitpicks:
By Anonymous Freak on 10/26/2008 6:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thrust SSC was not a "rocket" car, it was a pure "jet" car. (i.e. it was powered by a pair of turbojet engines, not by any form of rocket.)

Bloodhound SSC will be a combination turbojet/rocket car. (It will use a turbojet engine of the type used by the Eurofigher Typhoon to get going, then switch to a hybrid (meaning not fully liquid, nor fully solid fueled,) rocket engine (the same basic kind used by SpaceShipOne) for the major acceleration up to 1400 MPH.)




Throttle rocket?
By SKCooper on 10/28/2008 10:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Is using a rocket as opposed to Thrust SSC- and North American Eagle-style jet engines legal? I read somewhere that what passes for the "rules" for land speed record vehicles dictate an engine that can be throttled up and down and turned on and off, unlike a rocket which, once you light the fuse, just takes you along for the ride.

The Thrust SSC site went to some detail to dismiss an alleged Mach 1 run by a stuntman named Stan Barrett in the Budweiser Rocket for, among other things, making only one pass in one direction rather than the required two-way runs within an hour of each other.




Wrong speed?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/24/2008 11:31:02 AM , Rating: 1
The CNN article on this I read quoted Mach 1.4 and 1000 mph as the speed goals. 1000 mph would break the speed record of low level flight which they stated was 994 mph.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/23/bloodho...




Why?
By Aloonatic on 10/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Bateluer on 10/24/2008 10:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
Its more of a bragging rights thing, but the technologies developed will be useful in other fields.


RE: Why?
By Mitch101 on 10/24/2008 10:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
I could come up with much either than bragging rights as I tried tying this tech to the talk of intercontinental underwater train tubes but they will supposedly be done in a vacuum which the laws of this would apply unless the vacuum is broken.

Best of luck to them.


RE: Why?
By Mitch101 on 10/24/2008 10:18:44 AM , Rating: 4
I just read my comments.

I should not post before drinking my coffee.
I should not post before drinking my coffee.
I should not post before drinking my coffee.
I should not post before drinking my coffee.
I should not post before drinking my coffee.


RE: Why?
By MrPoletski on 10/24/2008 11:21:50 AM , Rating: 1
omg you made me laugh.


RE: Why?
By MrPoletski on 10/24/2008 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
hehe yeah from the look of that car the other fields will be missile design.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 10/24/2008 10:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
For one thing the sheer rush of reaching such an airspeed at ground level. Even fighter planes such as the F-16 and F-15 can not reach that speed safely at low altitude. Their canopies are not rated for airspeeds that high - they are told not to exceed ~880-950 knots at low altitude due to air density.

Perhaps that gives you an idea alone why these guys are so passionate about it. To be able to go faster than a military jet at low altitude - think about it - the rush of it.

I do fear, however, that the compression waves from breaking the barrier at ground level could pose quite a problem for the car both structurally and stability wise. Given the guys working on it, I am sure they will get it right, because if they don't, they'll go out in a very spectacular fashion.

Hey, if they can fund it, and they have to guts to do it, why not?


RE: Why?
By Aloonatic on 10/24/2008 10:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sure "the rush" of going that fast is fine and it's very dangerous too, but really, that and bragging rights are about the only things that they can take from this.

They've already broken the sound barrier, so that's not the goal here.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't do it and that it's not super cool that they can (assuming that they do) what I am saying is why are we (Britain) still going down this dead end when there are other things to be doing that are infinitely more useful?

In general, we're stuck in the past and have our fingers in our ears shouting "la la la we can't hear you" to the future as the rest of the world passes us by.

Baring Richard Branson that is, but he's seen as more of a crazy maverick and frankly not that British.


RE: Why?
By Snoop on 10/24/2008 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do fear, however, that the compression waves from breaking the barrier at ground level could pose quite a problem for the car both structurally and stability wise. Given the guys working on it, I am sure they will get it right, because if they don't, they'll go out in a very spectacular fashion.

Well they have already broken the 'barrier' which I am still surprised they were able to pull off. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9710/13/land.speed.record/

Going Mach 2 though is another issue. The incredible forces which must be precisely managed in order to keep the vehicle on the ground makes me concerned over whoever pilots this crafts safety.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 10/24/2008 10:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
If it is their money... let them spend it how they want. :)

Just look at Richard Garriott - he blew 30 million on a trip into space. If you have it, it is yours to do what you wish with it.


RE: Why?
By Aloonatic on 10/24/2008 10:48:52 AM , Rating: 2
Please read my original comment, thank you :)


RE: Why?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/24/2008 7:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Baring Richard Branson...
Please don't. I mean, he keeps himself in shape and all, but I'd rather not see him bare.


RE: Why?
By jeff834 on 10/26/2008 7:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
I constantly see people making this mistake asking "why do this when there are more important things"? Do you have a job? Why do that job when you can be a doctor or teacher as those are probably more important. Fact is people do what they want to do and work on what they want to work on. Some people do medical research, some people sell tshirts, other people break speed records. Engineers rarely ask why, they just do what comes naturally to them.


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/24/2008 5:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know how fast a knot is? It would seem that you don't. Even the low end of 880 knots is 1012 MPH. Is 1000 MPH faster than 1012 MPH? I think not. Plus, at 950 knows that's about 1100 MPH.

I'd still be impressed though... Seems more like they are attaching a SCRAMJET, or a RAMJET, to a car though. That's not a very big accomplishment other than getting it to function properly at low speeds. Then again... the air is more dense... so maybe it won't be much of an issue?


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 10/27/2008 9:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your argument holds no water. What is your point? I definitely do know what a knot is btw. Please explain the direction of your knife-edged strike.


RE: Why?
By Indianapolis on 10/24/2008 10:15:15 AM , Rating: 4
But couldn't you say that space travel is kind of "60's" too?


RE: Why?
By Aloonatic on 10/24/2008 10:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But couldn't you say that space travel is kind of "60's" too?

Yes

Is space travel research and development still useful now?

Yes

Is this sort of rocket car research and development useful now????

erm


RE: Why?
By Indianapolis on 10/24/2008 10:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
They're applying new technology to an old quest...and still pushing the envelope. If they're going to smash the record, it will require the latest in aerodynamics, engine efficiency, and materials. So....why the criticism? Besides, is it your money they're spending?


RE: Why?
By Aloonatic on 10/24/2008 10:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not criticising them per say, just asking why we are still going down these dead ends?

For the rest of your points, I refer the right honourable gentlemen to my previous (and original) comment.


RE: Why?
By murphyslabrat on 10/24/2008 12:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
to summarize:

I am not criticizing them, I'm just criticizing them.

And for the rest of your points, why doesn't anyone care that I'm so awesome?


RE: Why?
By Aloonatic on 10/24/2008 1:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not criticizing them, I'm just criticizing them.

I am not criticizing them personally, I am asking why bother with this?

If anything I criticized the way that Britain seems to be stuck on old records that very few people seem to care about now an have moved on from a long time ago.

quote:
Besides, is it your money they're spending?

I never said that they shouldn't spend their money on what ever they wanted. What I did say was that if they manage to get the funding for this, good luck to them.

quote:
They're applying new technology to an old quest...and still pushing the envelope. If they're going to smash the record, it will require the latest in aerodynamics, engine efficiency, and materials.

Why bother?

Have rocket programs not been around for a long long time?

Are rocket powered vehicles that leave the ground not much much much more useful?

quote:
And for the rest of your points, why doesn't anyone care that I'm so awesome?

You've lost me there to be honest? Care to elaborate?


RE: Why?
By BlizzardOne on 10/24/2008 3:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Britain is stuck in the 60s.


There's a US team also trying to beat the record, the North AMerican Eagle Project.

I guess the US is stuck in the 60s, too.


RE: Why?
By Farfignewton on 10/24/2008 5:30:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I guess the US is stuck in the 60s, too.


Yeah, but while we're there we are gong to steal Austin Powers' mojo.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki